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:   Tue, 23 Apr 2019 09:51:31 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <>
To:     Vlad Buslov <>
Cc:     "" <>,
        "" <>,
        "" <>,
        "" <>,
        "" <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] net: sched: flower: refactor reoffload for
 concurrent access

On Tue, 23 Apr 2019 07:34:20 +0000, Vlad Buslov wrote:
> >> @@ -382,6 +395,8 @@ static void fl_hw_destroy_filter(struct tcf_proto *tp, struct cls_fl_filter *f,
> >>  
> >>  	tc_setup_cb_call(block, TC_SETUP_CLSFLOWER, &cls_flower, false);
> >>  	spin_lock(&tp->lock);
> >> +	if (!list_empty(&f->hw_list))
> >> +		list_del_init(&f->hw_list);  
> >
> > Mm. I thought list_del_init() on an empty list should be fine?  
> Is it? Implementation of list_del_init() doesn't seem to check if list
> is empty before re-initializing its pointers. Technically it seems like
> it can work because the implementation will just set pointers of empty
> list to point to itself (which is how empty list head is defined), but
> should we assume this is intended behavior and not just implementation
> detail? I don't see anything in comments for this function that suggests
> that it is okay to call list_del_init() on empty list head.

Mm.. I'd do it, IDK if there was ever an official ruling by the
supreme court of Linus or any such ;)  __list_del_entry_valid() 
looks like it'd not complain.  Up to you, in general it didn't 
read very idiomatic, that's all.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists