netdev - Re: net-scm: Delete an unnecessary check before the function call "kfree"

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: <564B73D7.7040501@iogearbox.net>
Date:	Tue, 17 Nov 2015 19:37:11 +0100
From:	Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
To:	SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
CC:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
	Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>, eric.dumazet@...il.com
Subject: Re: net-scm: Delete an unnecessary check before the function call
 "kfree"

On 11/17/2015 07:05 PM, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
>> Eric already mentioned that in some situations where it's critical,
>> it actually slows down the code, i.e. you'll have an extra
>> function call to get there and inside kfree() / kfree_skb() / etc,
>> the test is actually marked as unlikely().
>
> How do you think about to add similar annotations to any more
> source code places?

You mean this likely() annotation of yours? It doesn't make any sense
to me to place it there, and since you've spend the second thinking
about it when adding it to the diff, you should have already realized
that your code was buggy ...
--
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