netdev - Re: [PATCH] net: check all name nodes in __dev_alloc

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, 18 Mar 2021 11:28:19 -0700
From:   Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>
To:     Jiri Bohac <jbohac@...e.cz>
Cc:     "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        Jiri Pirko <jiri@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: check all name nodes in  __dev_alloc_name

On Thu, 18 Mar 2021 10:06:52 +0100
Jiri Bohac <jbohac@...e.cz> wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 09:11:08PM -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> > Rather than copy/paste same code two places, why not make a helper function?  
> 
> I tried and in it was ugly (too many dependencies into the
> currecnt function)
> 
> Another option I considered and scratched was to opencode and
> modify list_for_each to also act on the dev->name_node
> which contains the list head. Or maybe one of the
> list_for_each_* variants could be directly misused for that.

That seems like overly complex and unhelpful option.

> I don't understand why this has been designed in such a
> non-standard way; why is the first node not part of the list and
> the head directly in the net_device?
> 
> In the end I considered the copy'n'paste of 9 lines the least
> ugly and most readable.
> 

Sure, make sense.