netdev - Re: [Patch net] atm: remove an unnecessary loop

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]

Date:   Sat, 14 Jan 2017 01:15:20 +0100
From:   Francois Romieu <romieu@...zoreil.com>
To:     Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
Cc:     Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
        Chas Williams <3chas3@...il.com>,
        Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [Patch net] atm: remove an unnecessary loop

Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com> :
> On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 5:23 AM, Francois Romieu <romieu@...zoreil.com> wrote:
[...]
> > alloc_skb() does not need to be in the "while" loop.
> 
> This is exactly what I describe in my changelog, don't know
> why you want to repeat it...

Because it is still hidden in a while loop. 

You turned the alloc from a two level deep "while" loop to a one level
one. I want it at zero level. alloc_skb(..., GFP_KERNEL) fails ?
So let it be done (see patch in other message).

[...]
> Please don't expect me to fix many things in one patch, let's
> fix each of them separately, agreed?

I am not convinced that several patches are needed to get the whole
picture right.

-- 
Ueimor