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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2016 01:14:41 -0700 From: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net> To: Manfred Spraul <manfred@...orfullife.com> Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@...e.de> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] ipc/sem: do not call wake_sem_queue_do() prematurely On Tue, 13 Sep 2016, Manfred Spraul wrote: >>- if (ipcperms(ns, &sma->sem_perm, alter ? S_IWUGO : S_IRUGO)) >>- goto out_rcu_wakeup; >>+ if (ipcperms(ns, &sma->sem_perm, alter ? S_IWUGO : S_IRUGO)) { >>+ rcu_read_unlock(); >>+ goto out_free; >>+ } >Is this really better/simpler? >You replace "if (error) goto cleanup" with "if (error) {cleanup_1(); >goto cleanup_2()}". I believe it is better as it clearly separates blocking from non-blocking exit paths. Overhead of course is irrelevant in both in-house wake_up_sem_queue_do and wake_up_q. Thanks, Davidlohr
Powered by blists - more mailing lists