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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20100907113115.GB5718@bicker> Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2010 13:31:15 +0200 From: Dan Carpenter <error27@...il.com> To: Shan Wei <shanwei@...fujitsu.com> Cc: Vlad Yasevich <vladislav.yasevich@...com>, Sridhar Samudrala <sri@...ibm.com>, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Wei Yongjun <yjwei@...fujitsu.com>, Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo <cascardo@...oscopio.com>, linux-sctp@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [patch] sctp: fix test for end of loop On Tue, Sep 07, 2010 at 04:46:58PM +0800, Shan Wei wrote: > Dan Carpenter wrote, at 09/06/2010 08:26 PM: > > + &new_addr->transports != &new_asoc->peer.transport_addr_list) { > > why did you add this check? > That's the check which tells us if we broke out of the loop or if we came to the end of the list. As I explained before, the only way that the check matters is if the list is empty. With the current code I do not think we ever call this function with an empty list, so that check is not needed. But the code could change I suppose and it doesn't hurt to be cautious. On the other hand, I'm fine with removing the check as well. regards, dan carpenter > > -- > Best Regards > ----- > Shan Wei -- 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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists