linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/6] rhashtable: improve documentation for rhashtable_walk

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]

Date:   Tue, 27 Mar 2018 11:47:00 -0400 (EDT)
From:   David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:     neilb@...e.com
Cc:     tgraf@...g.ch, herbert@...dor.apana.org.au, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] rhashtable: improve documentation for
 rhashtable_walk_peek()

From: NeilBrown <neilb@...e.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2018 10:33:04 +1100

> The documentation for rhashtable_walk_peek() wrong.  It claims to
> return the *next* entry, whereas it in fact returns the *previous*
> entry.
> However if no entries have yet been returned - or if the iterator
> was reset due to a resize event, then rhashtable_walk_peek()
> *does* return the next entry, but also advances the iterator.
> 
> I suspect that this interface should be discarded and the one user
> should be changed to not require it.  Possibly this patch should be
> seen as a first step in that conversation.
> 
> This patch mostly corrects the documentation, but does make a
> small code change so that the documentation can be correct without
> listing too many special cases.  I don't think the one user will
> be affected by the code change.
> 
> Signed-off-by: NeilBrown <neilb@...e.com>

Please mention the "one user" explicitly in both locations where
you refer to it in this commit message.

Thank you.