netdev - Re: [PATCH 32/39] convert vfs_dedupe_file

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]

Message-ID: <20240807-einnimmt-tonart-f300afffd5f7@brauner>
Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2024 12:42:07 +0200
From: Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>
To: viro@...nel.org
Cc: linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, amir73il@...il.com, bpf@...r.kernel.org, 
	cgroups@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org, 
	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 32/39] convert vfs_dedupe_file_range().

On Tue, Jul 30, 2024 at 01:16:18AM GMT, viro@...nel.org wrote:
> From: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
> 
> fdput() is followed by checking fatal_signal_pending() (and aborting
> the loop in such case).  fdput() is transposable with that check.
> Yes, it'll probably end up with slightly fatter code (call after the
> check has returned false + call on the almost never taken out-of-line path
> instead of one call before the check), but it's not worth bothering with
> explicit extra scope there (or dragging the check into the loop condition,
> for that matter).
> 
> Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
> ---

Reviewed-by: Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>