[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YTdAOWa/vLEhWQVt@google.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2021 19:34:33 +0900
From: Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@...omium.org>
To: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
Cc: Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@...omium.org>,
Namjae Jeon <linkinjeon@...nel.org>,
Steve French <sfrench@...ba.org>,
Hyunchul Lee <hyc.lee@...il.com>, linux-cifs@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ksmbd: remove unnecessary conditions
On (21/09/07 13:17), Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > >
> > > But you've seen it now, right?
> >
> > A linear search in array of 5 elements or a binary search in array of 340
> > elements? Yea, I saw it. I'd prefer one extra uid_valid(), if you'd ask
> > me - why call the function if we already know that it'll fail.
>
> It's a failure path. Hopefully people will only give us valid data.
>
I usually prefer to assume that remote clients are _not exactly_ nice folks.
Can this be a DoS vector - probably not. `cmp; je;` is several thousand
times cheaper that a bsearch, and this is a remote user request servicing
path. So. Just my 5 cents.
I'll leave it to you and Namjae to decide.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists