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]

Message-ID: <CAM_iQpVKkroPsdfkHRoVTLzoWeF-oXPGiyZJ7LkNZfRmLdG3Ow@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 13 Jan 2017 16:36:07 -0800
From:   Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
To:     Francois Romieu <romieu@...zoreil.com>
Cc:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        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

On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 4:14 PM, Francois Romieu <romieu@...zoreil.com> wrote:
> Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com> :
> [...]
>> If you can justify API is not broken by doing that, I am more than happy
>> to do it, as I already stated in the latter patch:
>>
>> "Of course, the logic itself is suspicious, other sendmsg()
>> could handle skb allocation failure very well, not sure
>> why ATM has to wait for a successful one here. But probably
>> it is too late to change since the errno and behavior is
>> visible to user-space. So just leave the logic as it is."
>>
>> For some reason, no one reads that patch. :-/
>
> Believe it or not but I actually read it.
>
> It changes the logic : the original code would have been unable to
> escape the while loop on memory failure. Fine, I don't mind the change.
> Actually I believe that these two patches are too shy (and backport
> unefficient). Instead of trying to reformulate why, here's what I have
> in mind. Uncompiled, caveat emptor, etc.

I just don't want to break things, that is it. If you can convince me your
change will not break any user-space application, again I am more
than just happy about it. My ATM knowledge is close to zero. ;)