netdev - Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] [net] af_unix: return data from multiple SKBs on recv() with MSG

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: <f7t4mii1vic.fsf@aconole.bos.csb>
Date:	Fri, 25 Sep 2015 09:25:15 -0400
From:	Aaron Conole <aconole@...heb.org>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] [net] af_unix: return data from multiple SKBs on recv() with MSG_PEEK flag

Thanks for your time and the review.

David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> writes:
> From: Aaron Conole <aconole@...heb.org>
> Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2015 20:27:02 -0400
>
>> +			goto unlock;
>
> Sorry, I don't want to see goto's from one loop into a completely
> different one.

I think you misread. This goto does not do that; it goes from the else 
side of one if block, into a different if block within the same do/while
pair. I assumed this was okay, because in 
commit:b48732e4a48d80ed4a14812f0bab09560846514e the same type of goto
unlock jump is used. Since that commit was accepted 4 months ago, I
figured the style hadn't changed. 

Would you rather see:
+			unix_state_unlock(sk);
+			break;

> The XXX comment is probably not appropriate either.

Agreed, any v4 post will not include it.
--
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