netdev - Re: [PATCH] xfrm: do not check x->km.state

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20121214114545.GI18940@secunet.com>
Date:	Fri, 14 Dec 2012 12:45:45 +0100
From:	Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>
To:	RongQing Li <roy.qing.li@...il.com>
Cc:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfrm: do not check x->km.state

On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 03:02:32PM +0800, RongQing Li wrote:
> 
> since xfrm_output_one() calls xfrm_state_check_expire() too, but without
> checking (x->km.state != XFRM_STATE_VALID), I think we can not directly
> remove the check of km.state from xfrm_state_check_expire(). I have two
> option, which one do you think it is better?
> 
> 1. remove this check in xfrm_state_check_expire, and add a check in
> xfrm_output_one
> 

I think the first option ist the better one. It removes a superfluous
check and we get some more statistics.

--
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