netdev - Re: xfrm_state locking regression...

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: <48D9DC1A.10903@iki.fi>
Date:	Wed, 24 Sep 2008 09:20:10 +0300
From:	Timo Teräs <timo.teras@....fi>
To:	Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
CC:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	jamal <hadi@...erus.ca>
Subject: Re: xfrm_state locking regression...

Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 09:04:30AM +0300, Timo Teräs wrote:
>> Or at least add a comment to the dumping function to say that
>> we have struct xfrm_state, but in matter of fact it can be
>> also struct xfrm_state_walk pointer with displacement, so we
>> better check km.state first.
> 
> Which is exactly what we do.  The first thing we check in the
> loop is km.state.  I really don't see your problem.

Yes. I'm not complaining that the code does not work.

Just saying that the code easily misleads the reader. And in
this kind of non-obvious places we should have some comments.
Or make the code more readable by adding the intermediate struct.

Cheers,
  Timo
--
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