Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 18 Apr 2024 08:12:22 +0000 | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/4] binder: migrate ioctl to new PF_SPAM_DETECTION | From | Alice Ryhl <> |
| |
Carlos Llamas <cmllamas@google.com> writes: > @@ -5553,7 +5553,8 @@ static long binder_ioctl(struct file *filp, unsigned int cmd, unsigned long arg) > goto err; > } > binder_inner_proc_lock(proc); > - proc->oneway_spam_detection_enabled = (bool)enable; > + proc->flags &= ~PF_SPAM_DETECTION; > + proc->flags |= enable & PF_SPAM_DETECTION;
The bitwise and in `enable & PF_SPAM_DETECTION` only works because PF_SPAM_DETECTION happens to be equal to 1. This seems pretty fragile to me. Would you be willing to do this instead?
proc->flags &= ~PF_SPAM_DETECTION; if (enable) proc->flags |= PF_SPAM_DETECTION;
Carlos Llamas <cmllamas@google.com> writes: > - if (proc->oneway_spam_detection_enabled && > - w->type == BINDER_WORK_TRANSACTION_ONEWAY_SPAM_SUSPECT) > + if (proc->flags & PF_SPAM_DETECTION && > + w->type == BINDER_WORK_TRANSACTION_ONEWAY_SPAM_SUSPECT)
Maybe I am just not sufficiently familiar with C, but I had to look up the operator precedence rules for this one. Could we add parenthesises around `proc->flags & PF_SPAM_DETECTION`? Or even define a macro for it?
Alice
| |