[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20240214175555.GC16265@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2024 18:55:55 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Tycho Andersen <tycho@...ho.pizza>
Cc: coverity-bot <keescook@...omium.org>,
Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>,
Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
Peng Zhang <zhangpeng.00@...edance.com>,
Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>,
Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>,
Heiko Carstens <hca@...ux.ibm.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik@...il.com>,
Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
Tycho Andersen <tandersen@...flix.com>,
Mike Christie <michael.christie@...cle.com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@...eddedor.com>,
linux-next@...r.kernel.org, linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Coverity: __do_sys_pidfd_send_signal(): UNINIT
Hi Tycho,
let me repeat just in case, I am fine either way, whatever you and
Christian prefer. In particular, I agree in advance if you decide
to not change the current code, it is correct even if it can fool
the tools.
That said,
On 02/14, Tycho Andersen wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 10:06:41AM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > - /* Ensure that only a single signal scope determining flag is set. */
> > - if (hweight32(flags & PIDFD_SEND_SIGNAL_FLAGS) > 1)
> > + switch (flags) {
> > + case 0:
> > + /* but see the PIDFD_THREAD check below */
>
> Why not put that bit inline?
Not sure I understand what does "inline" mean... but let me reply
anyway.
We want to check the "flags" argument at the start, we do not want to
delay the "case 0:" check until we have f.file (so that we can check
f.file->f_flags).
but perhaps this is another case when I misunderstand you.
> But I guess the hweight and flags mask
> are intended to be future proofness for flags that don't fit into this
> switch.
Yes I see, but
> That said, your patch reads better than the way it is in the
> tree and is what I was thinking.
this was my point.
And if we add more flags, we will need to update the "switch" stmt anyway.
But again, I won't insist. This is cosmetic afer all.
Oleg.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists