linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/8] af_unix: take address assignment/hash insertion into a new helper

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:   Sat, 20 Feb 2021 21:08:55 +0000
From:   Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
To:     Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
Cc:     Denis Kirjanov <kda@...ux-powerpc.org>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/8] af_unix: take address assignment/hash insertion into
 a new helper

On Sat, Feb 20, 2021 at 12:31:49PM -0800, Cong Wang wrote:
> Because it does not lock the lock, just compare:
> 
> lock();
> __unix_set_addr();
> unlock();
> 
> to:
> 
> lock();
> __unix_set_addr();
> 
> Clearly the former is more readable and less error-prone. Even
> if you really want to do unlock, pick a name which explicitly says
> it, for example, __unix_set_addr_unlock().

*shrug*

If anything, __unix_complete_bind() might make a better name for that,
with dropping ->bindlock also pulled in, but TBH I don't have sufficiently
strong preferences - might as well leave dropping the lock to caller.

I'll post that series to netdev tonight.