linux-kernel - Re: [v5] workqueue: Remove unnecessary kfree() call in rcu_free

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:   Thu, 28 May 2020 17:02:18 +0200
From:   Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>
To:     Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>,
        Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>,
        Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc:     Zhang Qiang <qiang.zhang@...driver.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [v5] workqueue: Remove unnecessary kfree() call in rcu_free_wq()

> I'm also confused why they have been debating about the changelog
> after the patch was queued.

I suggest to take another look at the provided patch review comments.


> My statement was about "the patch is a correct cleanup,
> but the changelog is totally misleading".

The commit message was accordingly adjusted, wasn't it?


> destroy_workqueue(percpu_wq) -> rcu_free_wq()
> or
> destroy_workqueue(unbound_wq) -> put_pwq() ->
> pwq_unbound_release_workfn() -> rcu_free_wq()
>
> So the patch is correct to me. Only can destroy_workqueue()
> lead to rcu_free_wq().
>
> Still, the kfree(NULL) is harmless. But it is cleaner
> to have the patch.

Thanks for such a feedback.


> But the changelog is wrong, even after the lengthened debating,

Do you expect any corresponding improvements?


> and English is not my mother tongue, so I just looked on.

How will the patch review evolve further despite of this information?

Regards,
Markus