netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH] NET: Clone the sk

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]

Date:	Thu, 03 Jan 2008 15:05:18 -0800 (PST)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	paul.moore@...com
Cc:	jarkao2@...il.com, hadi@...erus.ca, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] NET: Clone the sk_buff->iif field properly

From: Paul Moore <paul.moore@...com>
Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2008 16:20:06 -0500

> On Thursday 03 January 2008 4:13:12 pm Jarek Poplawski wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 11:15:34AM -0500, Paul Moore wrote:
> > ...
> >
> > > While I'm at it, is there some reason for this #define in
> > > __skb_clone()?
> > >
> > >  #define C(x) n->x = skb->x
> > >
> > > ... it seems kinda silly to me and I tend to think the code would
> > > be better without it.
> >
> > IMHO, if there are a lot of this, it's definitely more readable:
> > easier to check which values are simply copied and which need
> > something more. But, as usual, it's probably a question of taste, and
> > of course without it it would definitely look classier...
> 
> For me personally, I would argue the readability bit.

I definitely think the C() thing is more readable.

Less typing, less reading...

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html