[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAGXu5j+e2n6pUW+40ZNm5qifd8dVEEryN-Qfqe7ok-KZHP1Hyw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2018 15:23:08 -0700
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: Igor Stoppa <igor.stoppa@...il.com>
Cc: Igor Stoppa <igor.stoppa@...wei.com>,
linux-security-module <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] seccomp: remove unnecessary unlikely()
On Wed, Sep 5, 2018 at 1:34 PM, Igor Stoppa <igor.stoppa@...il.com> wrote:
> WARN_ON() already contains an unlikely(), so it's not necessary to wrap it
> into another.
>
> Signed-off-by: Igor Stoppa <igor.stoppa@...wei.com>
> Acked-by: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Should I take this, or is it part of your series going somewhere else?
-Kees
> Cc: linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org
> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
> ---
> kernel/seccomp.c | 4 ++--
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/seccomp.c b/kernel/seccomp.c
> index fd023ac24e10..5a2a9af4663e 100644
> --- a/kernel/seccomp.c
> +++ b/kernel/seccomp.c
> @@ -195,7 +195,7 @@ static u32 seccomp_run_filters(const struct seccomp_data *sd,
> READ_ONCE(current->seccomp.filter);
>
> /* Ensure unexpected behavior doesn't result in failing open. */
> - if (unlikely(WARN_ON(f == NULL)))
> + if (WARN_ON(f == NULL))
> return SECCOMP_RET_KILL_PROCESS;
>
> if (!sd) {
> @@ -297,7 +297,7 @@ static inline pid_t seccomp_can_sync_threads(void)
> /* Return the first thread that cannot be synchronized. */
> failed = task_pid_vnr(thread);
> /* If the pid cannot be resolved, then return -ESRCH */
> - if (unlikely(WARN_ON(failed == 0)))
> + if (WARN_ON(failed == 0))
> failed = -ESRCH;
> return failed;
> }
> --
> 2.17.1
>
--
Kees Cook
Pixel Security
Powered by blists - more mailing lists