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  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]
Date:	Tue, 6 Oct 2015 13:25:55 -0400
From:	Tejun Heo <>
To:	Cody P Schafer <>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <>,
	John de la Garza <>,
	Michel Lespinasse <>,
	Peter Zijlstra <>,
	Rusty Russell <>,
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rbtree: clarify documentation of


On Sun, Oct 04, 2015 at 06:32:50PM -0400, Cody P Schafer wrote:
> Doing this will cause random nodes to be missed by the iteration because
> rb_erase() may rebalance the tree, changing the ordering that we're
> trying to iterate over.
> The previous documentation for rbtree_postorder_for_each_entry_safe()
> wasn't clear that this wasn't allowed, it was taken from the docs for
> list_for_each_entry_safe(), where erasing isn't a problem due to
> list_del() not reordering.

Ugh... that's a misleading name for an iterator if it doesn't allow
removal of elements during iteration.

> Explicitly warn developers about this potential pit-fall.
> Note that I haven't fixed the actual issue that (it appears) the commit
> referenced above introduced (not familiar enough with that code).
> In general (and in this case), the patterns to follow are:
>  - switch to rb_first() + rb_erase(), don't use
>    rbtree_postorder_for_each_entry_safe().

I'll update it to a while loop on rb_first().


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists