netdev - Re: question about drivers/atm/firestream.c

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 17 Aug 2009 10:25:51 -0400
From:	"Chas Williams (CONTRACTOR)" <chas@....nrl.navy.mil>
To:	Julia Lawall <julia@...u.dk>
cc:	linux-atm-general@...ts.sourceforge.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: question about drivers/atm/firestream.c

In message <Pine.LNX.4.64.0908151906020.20096@....diku.dk>,Julia Lawall writes:
>In the file drivers/atm/firestream.c in the function fs_open, there is the 
>following code:
>
>       if (vci != ATM_VPI_UNSPEC && vpi != ATM_VCI_UNSPEC)
>                set_bit(ATM_VF_ADDR, &atm_vcc->flags);
>
>Should ATM_VPI_UNSPEC and ATM_VCI_UNSPEC be exchanged?  They have the same 
>value, but the code looks a bit odd this way nonetheless.

yes this is backwards.  this whole UNSPEC business should really go away.
drivers should never need to worry about getting an unspecified vpi or
vci.  this should be chosen by the next layer up in the stack.
--
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