[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220422122303.6lbcrknnbs6vsgr6@ava.usersys.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2022 13:23:03 +0100
From: Aaron Tomlin <atomlin@...hat.com>
To: Christoph Lameter <cl@...two.de>
Cc: Oleksandr Natalenko <oleksandr@...alenko.name>, mcgrof@...nel.org,
pmladek@...e.com, mbenes@...e.cz, christophe.leroy@...roup.eu,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-modules@...r.kernel.org, atomlin@...mlin.com,
ghalat@...hat.com, neelx@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] module: Introduce module unload taint tracking
On Fri 2022-04-22 10:11 +0200, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Apr 2022, Aaron Tomlin wrote:
>
> > > > + if (len == strlen(mod->name) && !memcmp(mod_taint->name, mod->name, len) &&
> > >
> > > Here, two strings are compared, so I'd expect to see `strncmp()` instead of `memcmp()`.
> >
> > Good point. There are other examples of this throughout
> > kernel/module/main.c; albeit, I will use strncmp() here.
>
> Comparing the length first may be an attempt to avoid the expensive
> memcmp. But here we need to first execute strlen() to obtain the string
> length. This is already accessing all characters so this
> check is wasteful and a straight str[n]cmp is better.
Hi Christoph,
Agreed - we can skip the extra strlen().
Thanks,
--
Aaron Tomlin
Powered by blists - more mailing lists