[PATHC] remove redundant variable in sys_prctl

[PATHC] remove redundant variable in sys_prctl

[Jesper Juhl]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1556 bytes --]

The `sig' variable in kernel/sys.c::sys_prctl() is completely
redundant, we might as well get rid of it.
Patch below for review (also attached since gmail's webmail interface
will most certainly mangle the inline one).

Signed-off-by: Jesper Juhl <jesper.juhl@gmail.com> 
---

--- linux-2.6.13-rc6/kernel/sys.c~      2005-08-09 13:35:40.000000000 +0200
+++ linux-2.6.13-rc6/kernel/sys.c       2005-08-09 13:35:40.000000000 +0200
@@ -1711,7 +1711,6 @@ asmlinkage long sys_prctl(int option, un
                          unsigned long arg4, unsigned long arg5)
 {
        long error;
-       int sig;

        error = security_task_prctl(option, arg2, arg3, arg4, arg5);
        if (error)
@@ -1719,12 +1718,11 @@ asmlinkage long sys_prctl(int option, un

        switch (option) {
                case PR_SET_PDEATHSIG:
-                       sig = arg2;
-                       if (!valid_signal(sig)) {
+                       if (!valid_signal(arg2)) {
                                error = -EINVAL;
                                break;
                        }
-                       current->pdeath_signal = sig;
+                       current->pdeath_signal = arg2;
                        break;
                case PR_GET_PDEATHSIG:
                        error = put_user(current->pdeath_signal, (int
__user *)arg2);



-- 
Jesper Juhl <jesper.juhl@gmail.com>
Don't top-post  http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/T/top-post.html
Plain text mails only, please      http://www.expita.com/nomime.html

[-- Attachment #2: sys_prctl.patch --]
[-- Type: application/octet-stream, Size: 812 bytes --]


Signed-off-by: Jesper Juhl <jesper.juhl@gmail.com>


--- linux-2.6.13-rc6/kernel/sys.c~	2005-08-09 13:35:40.000000000 +0200
+++ linux-2.6.13-rc6/kernel/sys.c	2005-08-09 13:35:40.000000000 +0200
@@ -1711,7 +1711,6 @@ asmlinkage long sys_prctl(int option, un
 			  unsigned long arg4, unsigned long arg5)
 {
 	long error;
-	int sig;
 
 	error = security_task_prctl(option, arg2, arg3, arg4, arg5);
 	if (error)
@@ -1719,12 +1718,11 @@ asmlinkage long sys_prctl(int option, un
 
 	switch (option) {
 		case PR_SET_PDEATHSIG:
-			sig = arg2;
-			if (!valid_signal(sig)) {
+			if (!valid_signal(arg2)) {
 				error = -EINVAL;
 				break;
 			}
-			current->pdeath_signal = sig;
+			current->pdeath_signal = arg2;
 			break;
 		case PR_GET_PDEATHSIG:
 			error = put_user(current->pdeath_signal, (int __user *)arg2);

Re: [PATHC] remove redundant variable in sys_prctl

[Jesper Juhl]

On 8/9/05, Jesper Juhl <jesper.juhl@gmail.com> wrote:
> The `sig' variable in kernel/sys.c::sys_prctl() is completely
> redundant, we might as well get rid of it.
> Patch below for review (also attached since gmail's webmail interface
> will most certainly mangle the inline one).
> 
> Signed-off-by: Jesper Juhl <jesper.juhl@gmail.com>
> ---
> 
> --- linux-2.6.13-rc6/kernel/sys.c~      2005-08-09 13:35:40.000000000 +0200
> +++ linux-2.6.13-rc6/kernel/sys.c       2005-08-09 13:35:40.000000000 +0200
> @@ -1711,7 +1711,6 @@ asmlinkage long sys_prctl(int option, un
>                           unsigned long arg4, unsigned long arg5)
>  {
>         long error;
> -       int sig;
> 
>         error = security_task_prctl(option, arg2, arg3, arg4, arg5);
>         if (error)
> @@ -1719,12 +1718,11 @@ asmlinkage long sys_prctl(int option, un
> 
>         switch (option) {
>                 case PR_SET_PDEATHSIG:
> -                       sig = arg2;
> -                       if (!valid_signal(sig)) {
> +                       if (!valid_signal(arg2)) {
>                                 error = -EINVAL;
>                                 break;
>                         }
> -                       current->pdeath_signal = sig;
> +                       current->pdeath_signal = arg2;
>                         break;
>                 case PR_GET_PDEATHSIG:
>                         error = put_user(current->pdeath_signal, (int
> __user *)arg2);
> 
> 

There is a slight difference made by this patch. since arg2 is
'unsigned long' and sig was a 'signed int', for sufficiently large
values the assignment to the signed int variable would have changed
the value.  Does this matter?  I don't think it does, but it just hit
me that it might..

-- 
Jesper Juhl <jesper.juhl@gmail.com>
Don't top-post  http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/T/top-post.html
Plain text mails only, please      http://www.expita.com/nomime.html