netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH 08/13] vsock: move vsock_insert_unbound() in the vsock

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:   Thu, 10 Oct 2019 11:52:50 +0200
From:   Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@...hat.com>
To:     Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@...il.com>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>,
        linux-hyperv@...r.kernel.org,
        Stephen Hemminger <sthemmin@...rosoft.com>,
        kvm@...r.kernel.org, "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
        Dexuan Cui <decui@...rosoft.com>,
        Haiyang Zhang <haiyangz@...rosoft.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
        Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@...hat.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jorgen Hansen <jhansen@...are.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 08/13] vsock: move vsock_insert_unbound() in the
 vsock_create()

On Wed, Oct 09, 2019 at 01:34:23PM +0100, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 01:26:58PM +0200, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
> > vsock_insert_unbound() was called only when 'sock' parameter of
> > __vsock_create() was not null. This only happened when
> > __vsock_create() was called by vsock_create().
> > 
> > In order to simplify the multi-transports support, this patch
> > moves vsock_insert_unbound() at the end of vsock_create().
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@...hat.com>
> > ---
> >  net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c | 13 +++++++++----
> >  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> 
> Maybe transports shouldn't call __vsock_create() directly.  They always
> pass NULL as the parent socket, so we could have a more specific
> function that transports call without a parent sock argument.  This
> would eliminate any concern over moving vsock_insert_unbound() out of
> this function.  In any case, I've checked the code and this patch is
> correct.

Yes, I agree with you, I can add a new patch to do this cleaning.

> 
> Reviewed-by: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@...hat.com>

Thanks,
Stefano