netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 02/15] net: dsa: sja1105: Remove usage of iterator for list

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Sat, 9 Apr 2022 01:49:10 +0200
From:   Jakob Koschel <jakobkoschel@...il.com>
To:     Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>
Cc:     "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
        Cristiano Giuffrida <c.giuffrida@...nl>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
        Ariel Elior <aelior@...vell.com>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        Manish Chopra <manishc@...vell.com>,
        Steen Hegelund <Steen.Hegelund@...rochip.com>,
        "Bos, H.J." <h.j.bos@...nl>,
        "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Martin Habets <habetsm.xilinx@...il.com>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...il.com>,
        Bjarni Jonasson <bjarni.jonasson@...rochip.com>,
        Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Brian Johannesmeyer <bjohannesmeyer@...il.com>,
        Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@...adoo.fr>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Di Zhu <zhudi21@...wei.com>,
        Lars Povlsen <lars.povlsen@...rochip.com>,
        Colin Ian King <colin.king@...el.com>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com" <UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com>,
        Edward Cree <ecree.xilinx@...il.com>,
        Michael Walle <michael@...le.cc>, Xu Wang <vulab@...as.ac.cn>,
        Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>,
        "linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org" <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
        Casper Andersson <casper.casan@...il.com>,
        Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 02/15] net: dsa: sja1105: Remove usage of
 iterator for list_add() after loop

Hey Christophe,

> On 8. Apr 2022, at 09:47, Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Le 07/04/2022 à 12:28, Jakob Koschel a écrit :
>> In preparation to limit the scope of a list iterator to the list
>> traversal loop, use a dedicated pointer to point to the found element [1].
>> 
>> Before, the code implicitly used the head when no element was found
>> when using &pos->list. Since the new variable is only set if an
>> element was found, the list_add() is performed within the loop
>> and only done after the loop if it is done on the list head directly.
>> 
>> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAHk-=wgRr_D8CB-D9Kg-c=EHreAsk5SqXPwr9Y7k9sA6cWXJ6w@mail.gmail.com/ [1]
>> Signed-off-by: Jakob Koschel <jakobkoschel@...il.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/net/dsa/sja1105/sja1105_vl.c | 14 +++++++++-----
>> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>> 
>> diff --git a/drivers/net/dsa/sja1105/sja1105_vl.c b/drivers/net/dsa/sja1105/sja1105_vl.c
>> index b7e95d60a6e4..cfcae4d19eef 100644
>> --- a/drivers/net/dsa/sja1105/sja1105_vl.c
>> +++ b/drivers/net/dsa/sja1105/sja1105_vl.c
>> @@ -27,20 +27,24 @@ static int sja1105_insert_gate_entry(struct sja1105_gating_config *gating_cfg,
>> 	if (list_empty(&gating_cfg->entries)) {
>> 		list_add(&e->list, &gating_cfg->entries);
>> 	} else {
>> -		struct sja1105_gate_entry *p;
>> +		struct sja1105_gate_entry *p = NULL, *iter;
>> 
>> -		list_for_each_entry(p, &gating_cfg->entries, list) {
>> -			if (p->interval == e->interval) {
>> +		list_for_each_entry(iter, &gating_cfg->entries, list) {
>> +			if (iter->interval == e->interval) {
>> 				NL_SET_ERR_MSG_MOD(extack,
>> 						 "Gate conflict");
>> 				rc = -EBUSY;
>> 				goto err;
>> 			}
>> 
>> -			if (e->interval < p->interval)
>> +			if (e->interval < iter->interval) {
>> +				p = iter;
>> +				list_add(&e->list, iter->list.prev);
>> 				break;
>> +			}
>> 		}
>> -		list_add(&e->list, p->list.prev);
>> +		if (!p)
>> +			list_add(&e->list, gating_cfg->entries.prev);
>> 	}
>> 
>> 	gating_cfg->num_entries++;
> 
> This change looks ugly, why duplicating the list_add() to do the same ? 
> At the end of the loop the pointer contains gating_cfg->entries, so it 
> was cleaner before.
> 
> If you don't want to use the loop index outside the loop, fair enough, 
> all you have to do is:
> 
> 		struct sja1105_gate_entry *p, *iter;
> 
> 		list_for_each_entry(iter, &gating_cfg->entries, list) {
> 			if (iter->interval == e->interval) {
> 				NL_SET_ERR_MSG_MOD(extack,
> 						 "Gate conflict");
> 				rc = -EBUSY;
> 				goto err;
> 			}
> 			p = iter;
> 
> 			if (e->interval < iter->interval)
> 				break;
> 		}
> 		list_add(&e->list, p->list.prev);

Thanks for the review and input.

The code you are showing here would have an uninitialized access to 'p'
if the list is empty.

Also 'p->list.prev' will be the second last entry if the list iterator
ran through completely, whereas the original code was pointing to the last
entry of the list.

IMO Vladimir Oltean posted a nice alternative way to solve it, see [1].
That way it keeps the semantics of the code the same and doesn't duplicate
the list_add.

> 
> 
> 
> Christophe

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kernel/20220408114120.tvf2lxvhfqbnrlml@skbuf/

Thanks,
Jakob