netdev - Re: [PATCH v3 net-next 04/14] af_unix: Bulk update unix_tot_inflight/unix

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: Tue, 27 Feb 2024 11:47:23 +0100
From: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
To: Kuniyuki Iwashima <kuniyu@...zon.com>, "David S. Miller"
	 <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Jakub Kicinski
	 <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc: Kuniyuki Iwashima <kuni1840@...il.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 net-next 04/14] af_unix: Bulk update
 unix_tot_inflight/unix_inflight when queuing skb.

On Fri, 2024-02-23 at 13:39 -0800, Kuniyuki Iwashima wrote:
> diff --git a/net/unix/garbage.c b/net/unix/garbage.c
> index 96d0b1db3638..e8fe08796d02 100644
> --- a/net/unix/garbage.c
> +++ b/net/unix/garbage.c
> @@ -148,6 +148,7 @@ static void unix_free_vertices(struct scm_fp_list *fpl)
>  }
>  
>  DEFINE_SPINLOCK(unix_gc_lock);
> +unsigned int unix_tot_inflight;
>  
>  void unix_add_edges(struct scm_fp_list *fpl, struct unix_sock *receiver)
>  {
> @@ -172,7 +173,10 @@ void unix_add_edges(struct scm_fp_list *fpl, struct unix_sock *receiver)
>  		unix_add_edge(fpl, edge);
>  	} while (i < fpl->count_unix);
>  
> +	WRITE_ONCE(unix_tot_inflight, unix_tot_inflight + fpl->count_unix);
>  out:
> +	WRITE_ONCE(fpl->user->unix_inflight, fpl->user->unix_inflight + fpl->count);

I'm unsure if later patches will shed some light, but why the above
statement is placed _after_ the 'out' label? fpl->count will be 0 in
such path, and the updated not needed. Why don't you place it before
the mentioned label?

> +
>  	spin_unlock(&unix_gc_lock);
>  
>  	fpl->inflight = true;
> @@ -195,7 +199,10 @@ void unix_del_edges(struct scm_fp_list *fpl)
>  		unix_del_edge(fpl, edge);
>  	} while (i < fpl->count_unix);
>  
> +	WRITE_ONCE(unix_tot_inflight, unix_tot_inflight - fpl->count_unix);
>  out:
> +	WRITE_ONCE(fpl->user->unix_inflight, fpl->user->unix_inflight - fpl->count);

Same question here.

Thanks!

Paolo