netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] sctp: remove unused cmd SCTP_CMD_GEN_INIT

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: <20190510112718.GA4902@hmswarspite.think-freely.org>
Date:   Fri, 10 May 2019 07:27:18 -0400
From:   Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>
To:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:     lucien.xin@...il.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-sctp@...r.kernel.org, marcelo.leitner@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] sctp: remove unused cmd SCTP_CMD_GEN_INIT_ACK

On Thu, May 09, 2019 at 09:39:13AM -0700, David Miller wrote:
> From: Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>
> Date: Thu, 9 May 2019 07:32:35 -0400
> 
> > This is definately a valid cleanup, but I wonder if it wouldn't be better to,
> > instead of removing it, to use it.  We have 2 locations where we actually call
> > sctp_make_init_ack, and then have to check the return code and abort the
> > operation if we get a NULL return.  Would it be a better solution (in the sense
> > of keeping our control flow in line with how the rest of the state machine is
> > supposed to work), if we didn't just add a SCTP_CMD_GEN_INIT_ACK sideeffect to
> > the state machine queue in the locations where we otherwise would call
> > sctp_make_init_ack/sctp_add_cmd_sf(...SCTP_CMD_REPLY)?
> 
> Also, net-next is closed 8-)
> 
Details, details :)