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:   Fri, 13 Jan 2017 16:41:53 -0800
From:   Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
To:     Francois Romieu <romieu@...zoreil.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

On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 4:15 PM, Francois Romieu <romieu@...zoreil.com> wrote:
> 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).
>

Why I didn't remove all the loops is already stated in the later patch,
you said you read it? I doubt. ;)


> [...]
>> 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.
>

My guideline for stable fixes is one patch fixes one problem, maybe
not suitable to you I think. Let's agree to disagree. ;)