[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87fu2asl1w.fsf@xmission.com>
Date: Tue, 29 May 2018 07:28:27 -0500
From: ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To: Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
mingo@...nel.org, james.morris@...rosoft.com,
keescook@...omium.org, peterz@...radead.org, sds@...ho.nsa.gov,
viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, oleg@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 05/20] signal: flatten do_send_sig_info()
Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io> writes:
> Let's return early when lock_task_sighand() fails and move send_signal()
> and unlock_task_sighand() out of the if block.
Introducing multiple exits into a function. Ick.
You do know that is what Dijkstra was arguing against in his paper
"Goto Considered Harmful"
That introduces mutiple exits and makes the function harder to analyze.
It is especially a pain as I have something in my queue that will
shuffle things around and remove the possibility of lock_task_sighand
failing.
Eric
> Signed-off-by: Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io>
> ---
> v0->v1:
> * patch unchanged
> ---
> kernel/signal.c | 10 +++++-----
> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/signal.c b/kernel/signal.c
> index baae137455eb..a628b56415e6 100644
> --- a/kernel/signal.c
> +++ b/kernel/signal.c
> @@ -1167,16 +1167,16 @@ specific_send_sig_info(int sig, struct siginfo *info, struct task_struct *t)
> }
>
> int do_send_sig_info(int sig, struct siginfo *info, struct task_struct *p,
> - bool group)
> + bool group)
> {
> unsigned long flags;
> int ret = -ESRCH;
>
> - if (lock_task_sighand(p, &flags)) {
> - ret = send_signal(sig, info, p, group);
> - unlock_task_sighand(p, &flags);
> - }
> + if (!lock_task_sighand(p, &flags))
> + return ret;
>
> + ret = send_signal(sig, info, p, group);
> + unlock_task_sighand(p, &flags);
> return ret;
> }
Powered by blists - more mailing lists