linux-kernel - [PATCH 3.2 103/126] net: cleanups in sock

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: <lsq.1487198494.323453254@decadent.org.uk>
Date:   Wed, 15 Feb 2017 22:41:34 +0000
From:   Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk>
To:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org
CC:     akpm@...ux-foundation.org, "Eric Dumazet" <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: [PATCH 3.2 103/126] net: cleanups in sock_setsockopt()

3.2.85-rc1 review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let me know.

------------------

From: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>

commit 82981930125abfd39d7c8378a9cfdf5e1be2002b upstream.

Use min_t()/max_t() macros, reformat two comments, use !!test_bit() to
match !!sock_flag()

Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Signed-off-by: Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk>
---
 net/core/sock.c | 42 +++++++++++++++---------------------------
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 27 deletions(-)

--- a/net/core/sock.c
+++ b/net/core/sock.c
@@ -526,23 +526,15 @@ int sock_setsockopt(struct socket *sock,
 		break;
 	case SO_SNDBUF:
 		/* Don't error on this BSD doesn't and if you think
-		   about it this is right. Otherwise apps have to
-		   play 'guess the biggest size' games. RCVBUF/SNDBUF
-		   are treated in BSD as hints */
-
-		if (val > sysctl_wmem_max)
-			val = sysctl_wmem_max;
+		 * about it this is right. Otherwise apps have to
+		 * play 'guess the biggest size' games. RCVBUF/SNDBUF
+		 * are treated in BSD as hints
+		 */
+		val = min_t(u32, val, sysctl_wmem_max);
 set_sndbuf:
 		sk->sk_userlocks |= SOCK_SNDBUF_LOCK;
-		if ((val * 2) < SOCK_MIN_SNDBUF)
-			sk->sk_sndbuf = SOCK_MIN_SNDBUF;
-		else
-			sk->sk_sndbuf = val * 2;
-
-		/*
-		 *	Wake up sending tasks if we
-		 *	upped the value.
-		 */
+		sk->sk_sndbuf = max_t(u32, val * 2, SOCK_MIN_SNDBUF);
+		/* Wake up sending tasks if we upped the value. */
 		sk->sk_write_space(sk);
 		break;
 
@@ -555,12 +547,11 @@ set_sndbuf:
 
 	case SO_RCVBUF:
 		/* Don't error on this BSD doesn't and if you think
-		   about it this is right. Otherwise apps have to
-		   play 'guess the biggest size' games. RCVBUF/SNDBUF
-		   are treated in BSD as hints */
-
-		if (val > sysctl_rmem_max)
-			val = sysctl_rmem_max;
+		 * about it this is right. Otherwise apps have to
+		 * play 'guess the biggest size' games. RCVBUF/SNDBUF
+		 * are treated in BSD as hints
+		 */
+		val = min_t(u32, val, sysctl_rmem_max);
 set_rcvbuf:
 		sk->sk_userlocks |= SOCK_RCVBUF_LOCK;
 		/*
@@ -578,10 +569,7 @@ set_rcvbuf:
 		 * returning the value we actually used in getsockopt
 		 * is the most desirable behavior.
 		 */
-		if ((val * 2) < SOCK_MIN_RCVBUF)
-			sk->sk_rcvbuf = SOCK_MIN_RCVBUF;
-		else
-			sk->sk_rcvbuf = val * 2;
+		sk->sk_rcvbuf = max_t(u32, val * 2, SOCK_MIN_RCVBUF);
 		break;
 
 	case SO_RCVBUFFORCE:
@@ -923,7 +911,7 @@ int sock_getsockopt(struct socket *sock,
 		break;
 
 	case SO_PASSCRED:
-		v.val = test_bit(SOCK_PASSCRED, &sock->flags) ? 1 : 0;
+		v.val = !!test_bit(SOCK_PASSCRED, &sock->flags);
 		break;
 
 	case SO_PEERCRED:
@@ -958,7 +946,7 @@ int sock_getsockopt(struct socket *sock,
 		break;
 
 	case SO_PASSSEC:
-		v.val = test_bit(SOCK_PASSSEC, &sock->flags) ? 1 : 0;
+		v.val = !!test_bit(SOCK_PASSSEC, &sock->flags);
 		break;
 
 	case SO_PEERSEC: