Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 20, 2007 at 12:37:45PM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> > --- linux-2.6.22-orig/kernel/sysctl.c
> > +++ linux-2.6.22/kernel/sysctl.c
> > @@ -1190,9 +1190,9 @@
> > return -ENOTDIR;
> > if (get_user(n, name))
> > return -EFAULT;
> > + if (!n)
> > + return -ENOTDIR;
> > for ( ; table->ctl_name || table->procname; table++) {
> > - if (!table->ctl_name)
> > - continue;
> > if (n == table->ctl_name) {
> > int error;
> > if (table->child) {
>
> I don't like this. For one, it destroy some symmetry in sysctl table
> walking code, where sysctl(2) code checks for valid ->ctl_name, and proc
> code checks for valid ->procname and both have same for loop. For two,
> nobody uses sysctl(2), sysctl aren't big, so this optimization is
> unneeded.
Excuse me, but I didn't understand what you are worrying.
I'm saying that:
If n == 0, the condition "if (n == table->ctl_name)" is always false
because of previous "if (!table->ctl_name) continue;" statement
regardless of the result whether ->ctl_name and/or ->procname are valid or
not.
Thus, they always return -ENOTDIR if n == 0.
Why this optimization destroys something?
Should "if (!table->ctl_name)" be
for ( ; table->ctl_name || table->procname; table++) {
- if (!table->ctl_name)
+ if (!table->procname)
continue;
if (n == table->ctl_name) {
int error;
if (table->child) {
or something?
Regards.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
