Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 29 May 2018 14:38:04 +0200 | From | Christian Brauner <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v1 05/20] signal: flatten do_send_sig_info() |
| |
On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 07:28:27AM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > Christian Brauner <christian@brauner.io> writes: > > > Let's return early when lock_task_sighand() fails and move send_signal() > > and unlock_task_sighand() out of the if block. > > Introducing multiple exits into a function. Ick. > You do know that is what Dijkstra was arguing against in his paper > "Goto Considered Harmful" > > That introduces mutiple exits and makes the function harder to analyze. > It is especially a pain as I have something in my queue that will > shuffle things around and remove the possibility of lock_task_sighand > failing.
I'm happy to drop this one if you have a fix for this in your tree anyway.
Aside from that, I think it might make sense to route this patch series through your tree though since you're doing the siginfo rework currently.(?)
Christian
> > Eric > > > Signed-off-by: Christian Brauner <christian@brauner.io> > > --- > > v0->v1: > > * patch unchanged > > --- > > kernel/signal.c | 10 +++++----- > > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/kernel/signal.c b/kernel/signal.c > > index baae137455eb..a628b56415e6 100644 > > --- a/kernel/signal.c > > +++ b/kernel/signal.c > > @@ -1167,16 +1167,16 @@ specific_send_sig_info(int sig, struct siginfo *info, struct task_struct *t) > > } > > > > int do_send_sig_info(int sig, struct siginfo *info, struct task_struct *p, > > - bool group) > > + bool group) > > { > > unsigned long flags; > > int ret = -ESRCH; > > > > - if (lock_task_sighand(p, &flags)) { > > - ret = send_signal(sig, info, p, group); > > - unlock_task_sighand(p, &flags); > > - } > > + if (!lock_task_sighand(p, &flags)) > > + return ret; > > > > + ret = send_signal(sig, info, p, group); > > + unlock_task_sighand(p, &flags); > > return ret; > > }
| |