linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next] taprio: remove unused variable 'entry_list

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:   Fri, 9 Aug 2019 09:33:01 +0800
From:   Yuehaibing <yuehaibing@...wei.com>
To:     Vinicius Costa Gomes <vinicius.gomes@...el.com>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
CC:     <jhs@...atatu.com>, <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>, <jiri@...nulli.us>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] taprio: remove unused variable
 'entry_list_policy'

On 2019/8/9 4:42, Vinicius Costa Gomes wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> writes:
> 
>> From: YueHaibing <yuehaibing@...wei.com>
>> Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2019 22:26:23 +0800
>>
>>> net/sched/sch_taprio.c:680:32: warning:
>>>  entry_list_policy defined but not used [-Wunused-const-variable=]
>>>
>>> It is not used since commit a3d43c0d56f1 ("taprio: Add
>>> support adding an admin schedule")
>>>
>>> Reported-by: Hulk Robot <hulkci@...wei.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: YueHaibing <yuehaibing@...wei.com>
>>
>> This is probably unintentional and a bug, we should be using that
>> policy value to validate that the sched list is indeed a nested
>> attribute.
> 
> Removing this policy should be fine.
> 
> One of the points of commit (as explained in the commit message)
> a3d43c0d56f1 ("taprio: Add support adding an admin schedule") is that it
> removes support (it now returns "not supported") for schedules using the
> TCA_TAPRIO_ATTR_SCHED_SINGLE_ENTRY attribute (which were never used),
> the parsing of those types of schedules was the only user of this
> policy.
> 
>>
>> I'm not applying this without at least a better and clear commit
>> message explaining why we shouldn't be using this policy any more.
> 
> YueHaibing may use the text above in the commit message of a new spin of
> this patch if you think it's clear enough.

Thanks, will send v2 with your explanation.

> 
> 
> Cheers,
> --
> Vinicius
> 
> .
>