linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5/8] signal: flatten do_send_sig

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: <20180528150719.GA29882@mailbox.org>
Date:   Mon, 28 May 2018 17:07:20 +0200
From:   Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io>
To:     Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, ebiederm@...ssion.com,
        gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, mingo@...nel.org,
        james.morris@...rosoft.com, keescook@...omium.org,
        peterz@...radead.org, sds@...ho.nsa.gov, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
        oleg@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/8] signal: flatten do_send_sig_info()

On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 03:15:37PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 03:49:13PM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote:
> > Let's return early when lock_task_sighand() fails and move send_signal()
> > and unlock_task_sighand() out of the if block.
> 
> Why is it an improvement?

I prefer to return early if I know I can and have the bigger portion of
the code move out of the if-branch. But that's - let's say - an
opinionated improvement.

Christian