netdev - Re: Question on ipmr.c locking in 2.6.25

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: <20080528215833.GA14038@solarflare.com>
Date:	Wed, 28 May 2008 22:58:34 +0100
From:	Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@...arflare.com>
To:	Ben Greear <greearb@...delatech.com>
Cc:	NetDev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Question on ipmr.c locking in 2.6.25

Ben Greear wrote:
> It looks like this method can return without unlocking the
> mrt_lock or mfc_unres_lock.  Is this a bug, or am I just
> confused about how it is supposed to work?
<snip>

Since it returns without unlocking in the normal (not error) case, I would
guess that's how it's supposed to work.  The caller can uses the it->cache
pointer to work out which lock (if any) it needs to unlock.

Still, this is an unusual way of doing things, and rates about a 2 on
Rusty's scale <http://ozlabs.org/~rusty/index.cgi/2008/03/30/> (though
to be fair this is not critical for static functions).

Ben.

-- 
Ben Hutchings, Senior Software Engineer, Solarflare Communications
Not speaking for my employer; that's the marketing department's job.
--
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