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]
Message-ID: <9dfbc7ce-49cc-4519-88cf-93d6b72e5ff6@linux.dev>
Date:   Thu, 16 Nov 2023 00:16:34 -0500
From:   Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@...ux.dev>
To:     Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>
Cc:     Chuyi Zhou <zhouchuyi@...edance.com>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Kui-Feng Lee <kuifeng@...com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        bpf@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] bpf: bpf_iter_task_next: use next_task(kit->task)
 rather than next_task(kit->pos)


On 11/14/23 11:32 AM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> This looks more clear and simplifies the code. While at it, remove the
> unnecessary initialization of pos/task at the start of bpf_iter_task_new().
>
> Note that we can even kill kit->task, we can just use pos->group_leader,
> but I don't understand the BUILD_BUG_ON() checks in bpf_iter_task_new().

Let us keep kit->task, which is used in later function
bpf_iter_task_next(). The patch looks good to me.

>
> Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>

Acked-by: Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@...ux.dev>

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ