netdev - Re: [PATCH net-2.6.25][NEIGH] Make neigh_add_timer symmetrical to neigh_del

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20071220.155011.245874156.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Thu, 20 Dec 2007 15:50:11 -0800 (PST)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	xemul@...nvz.org
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, devel@...nvz.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-2.6.25][NEIGH] Make neigh_add_timer symmetrical to
 neigh_del_timer

From: Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...nvz.org>
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 12:50:37 +0300

> The neigh_del_timer() looks sane - it removes the timer and
> (conditionally) puts the neighbor. I expected, that the
> neigh_add_timer() is symmetrical to the del one - i.e. it
> holds the neighbor and arms the timer - but it turned out
> that it was not so.
> 
> I think, that making them look symmetrical makes the code 
> more readable.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...nvz.org>

I agree, it looks more reable now, applied.

This code used to be a lot worse, I think we had some
confusion about whether the timer should always not be
pending in these circumstances.  But that was a bug
fix from a long time ago, however I believe that's
where the dump_stack() bug check came from in the
add timer case.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html