netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 5/7] sctp: reuse the some transport traversal functions in proc

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: <20160407182954.GF15005@localhost.localdomain>
Date:	Thu, 7 Apr 2016 15:29:54 -0300
From:	Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <marcelo.leitner@...il.com>
To:	Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>
Cc:	Xin Long <lucien.xin@...il.com>,
	network dev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-sctp@...r.kernel.org, Vlad Yasevich <vyasevich@...il.com>,
	daniel@...earbox.net, davem@...emloft.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 5/7] sctp: reuse the some transport traversal
 functions in proc

On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 09:09:30AM -0400, Neil Horman wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 05, 2016 at 12:06:30PM +0800, Xin Long wrote:
> > There are some transport traversal functions for sctp_diag, we can also
> > use it for sctp_proc. cause they have the similar situation to traversal
> > transport.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Xin Long <lucien.xin@...il.com>
> > ---
> >  net/sctp/proc.c | 80 +++++++++++++--------------------------------------------
> >  1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 62 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/net/sctp/proc.c b/net/sctp/proc.c
> > index 5cfac8d..dd8492f 100644
> > --- a/net/sctp/proc.c
> > +++ b/net/sctp/proc.c
> > @@ -282,80 +282,31 @@ struct sctp_ht_iter {
> >  	struct rhashtable_iter hti;
> >  };
> >  
> > -static struct sctp_transport *sctp_transport_get_next(struct seq_file *seq)
> > -{
> > -	struct sctp_ht_iter *iter = seq->private;
> > -	struct sctp_transport *t;
> > -
> > -	t = rhashtable_walk_next(&iter->hti);
> > -	for (; t; t = rhashtable_walk_next(&iter->hti)) {
> > -		if (IS_ERR(t)) {
> > -			if (PTR_ERR(t) == -EAGAIN)
> > -				continue;
> > -			break;
> > -		}
> > -
> > -		if (net_eq(sock_net(t->asoc->base.sk), seq_file_net(seq)) &&
> > -		    t->asoc->peer.primary_path == t)
> > -			break;
> > -	}
> > -
> > -	return t;
> > -}
> > -
> 
> this may just be a nit, but you defined the new sctp_transport_get_next in patch
> 2 of this series, and didn't remove this private version until here.  Is that
> going to cause some behavioral issue, if someone builds a kernel between patch 2

Yes, it causes issues:

...net/sctp/proc.c:285:31: error: conflicting types for ‘sctp_transport_get_next’
 static struct sctp_transport *sctp_transport_get_next(struct seq_file *seq)
                               ^

> and 7?  Seems like perhaps those two patches should be merged.

Agreed.

  Marcelo