netdev - [RFC][PATCH 0/2] inet6: two cases of shadowing other variables

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <1248028721-24244-1-git-send-email-gerrit@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
Date:	Sun, 19 Jul 2009 20:38:39 +0200
From:	Gerrit Renker <gerrit@....abdn.ac.uk>
To:	davem@...emloft.net
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [RFC][PATCH 0/2] inet6: two cases of shadowing other variables

Two cases of shadowing variables. 

Patches are not meant to be applied immediately, especially in the first
one I am not sure if the code is ok without adding a lock.

Can the IPv6 developers please have a look through:

Patch #1: Local variable shadows function argument. After renaming,
          the question arose whether the code is correct wrt locking.

          Please take a look at this code part, no lock is taken on
	  the pmc->idev. (There is similar code in ip6_mc_del_src()).

Patch #2: Several functions shadow a global variable.
	  Can be applied directly, but better to review wrt:
	  given that ipv6_sysctl_register() calls register_pernet_subsys(),
	  does it make sense to merge the one-row table with
	  ipv6_table_template[], or are there namespace issues?

--
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