linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] net/9p: add a per-client fcall kmem

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <5B6CEF2C.2070606@huawei.com>
Date:   Fri, 10 Aug 2018 09:49:32 +0800
From:   piaojun <piaojun@...wei.com>
To:     Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@...ewreck.org>
CC:     <v9fs-developer@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
        Dominique Martinet <dominique.martinet@....fr>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        "Greg Kurz" <groug@...d.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] net/9p: add a per-client fcall kmem_cache

Thanks for clearing my doubt, and you can add:

Acked-by: Jun Piao <piaojun@...wei.com>

On 2018/8/10 9:41, Dominique Martinet wrote:
> piaojun wrote on Fri, Aug 10, 2018:
>> Could you help paste the test result of before-after-applied this patch in
>> comment? And please see my comments below.
> 
> Thanks the the review, do you mean the commit message?
> 
> I'll add the summary I wrote in reply to your question a few mails
> before.
> 
Yes, I mean the commit message.

> 
>>> diff --git a/include/net/9p/9p.h b/include/net/9p/9p.h
>>> index e23896116d9a..645266b74652 100644
>>> --- a/include/net/9p/9p.h
>>> +++ b/include/net/9p/9p.h
>>> @@ -336,6 +336,9 @@ enum p9_qid_t {
>>>  #define P9_NOFID	(u32)(~0)
>>>  #define P9_MAXWELEM	16
>>>  
>>> +/* Minimal header size: len + id + tag */
>>
>> Here should be 'size + id + tag'.
> 
> hm I didn't want to repeat size, but I guess people do refer to that
> field as size.
> I'll actually rewrite it as:
>  Minimal header size: size[4] type[1] tag[2]
> 
It looks better.

>>> +	kmem_cache_destroy(clnt->fcall_cache);
>>
>> I'm afraid that we should check NULL for clnt->fcall_cache.
> 
> kmem_cache_destroy() in mm/slab_common.c does the null check for us:
> ------
> void kmem_cache_destroy(struct kmem_cache *s)
> {
>         int err;
>         
>         if (unlikely(!s))
>                 return;
> ------
> 
OK, it makes sense.