netdev - Re: Re: [PATCH net v2] connector: Change the judgment conditions for clearing proc_event_num

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20240119123705.GB9015@breakpoint.cc>
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2024 13:37:05 +0100
From: Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>
To: wangkeqi <wangkeqi_chris@....com>
Cc: Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>, davem@...emloft.net,
	edumazet@...gle.com, kuba@...nel.org, pabeni@...hat.com,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	wangkeqi <wangkeqiwang@...iglobal.com>,
	kernel test robot <oliver.sang@...el.com>, fengwei.yin@...el.com
Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH net v2] connector: Change the judgment conditions for
 clearing proc_event_num_listeners

wangkeqi <wangkeqi_chris@....com> wrote:
> 
> If cn_netlink_has_listeners() is used instead of proc_event_num_listeners, I think proc_event_num_listeners will be completely meaningless. 
> I read the code and found that there is nothing wrong with cn_netlink_has_listeners as a judgment of whether to send msg. 
> sock_close will update the listeners. The previous proc_event_num_listeners count was wrong, making it meaningless. 
> But if I change it to cn_netlink_has_listeners, will it affect some low-probability scenarios?

Please avoid top-posting on netdev mailing list.

Yes, thats what I meant, replace proc_event_num_listeners.

I do not know what a 'low-probability scenarios' is.