linux-kernel - Re: [patch] f2fs: use _safe() version of list_for

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20130121083457.GB11592@core.coreip.homeip.net>
Date:	Mon, 21 Jan 2013 00:34:57 -0800
From:	Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
To:	Namjae Jeon <linkinjeon@...il.com>
Cc:	Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>,
	Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk.kim@...sung.com>,
	linux-f2fs-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch] f2fs: use _safe() version of list_for_each

On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 09:39:43AM +0900, Namjae Jeon wrote:
> 2013/1/21, Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>:
> > This is calling list_del() inside a loop which is a problem when we try
> > move to the next item on the list.  I've converted it to use the _safe
> > version.  And also, as a cleanup, I've converted it to use
> > list_for_each_entry instead of list_for_each.
> >
> Hi Dan.
> I can't understand why this patch is needed yet.
> Could you elaborate more ?

A simple rule of thumb: if you modify list inside the loop you need to
use the _safe variant of the iterator, since once element is deleted you
can't get from it to the next element.

Thanks.

-- 
Dmitry
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/