netdev - Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] net: sched: use RCU read-side critical section in taprio

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: <1811760f-ea09-46cb-9918-b8f46995b415@intel.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2024 15:53:20 +0200
From: Alexander Lobakin <aleksander.lobakin@...el.com>
To: Dmitry Antipov <dmantipov@...dex.ru>
CC: Vinicius Costa Gomes <vinicius.gomes@...el.com>, Jakub Kicinski
	<kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	<lvc-project@...uxtesting.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] net: sched: use RCU read-side critical section in
 taprio_dump()

From: Dmitry Antipov <dmantipov@...dex.ru>
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2024 16:48:39 +0300

> On 8/30/24 4:02 PM, Alexander Lobakin wrote:
> 
>> Why did you invert this condition and introduced +1 indent level?
> 
> Just to reduce amount of labels and related gotos. After adding 'unlock'
> at the end of RCU critical section, it was too much of them IMHO.
> 
>> The original code doesn't have nla_nest_cancel(), why was it added?
> 
> IIUC both original and new code has 'nla_nest_start_noflag()' and
> 'nla_nest_{end,chancel}()' calls balanced correctly.

Ah sorry, I haven't noticed you removed the related label below.
That's why it's not a good idea to refactor the code in the patch
targeted as a fix.
You just need to fix the actual issue, not refactor anything / change
the code flow.

> 
> Dmitry

Thanks,
Olek