netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 13/14] wireless: Use eth_<foo>

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:	Tue, 03 Mar 2015 00:37:38 -0800
From:	Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:	Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 13/14] wireless: Use eth_<foo>_addr instead of
 memset

On Tue, 2015-03-03 at 09:16 +0100, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Mon, 2015-03-02 at 19:54 -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> > Use the built-in function instead of memset.
> 
> Please don't use <foo> in the title, especially not if the patch only
> introduces usage of eth_zero_addr(). It's easier to look for in the
> commit log without it.
> 
> Other than that, I guess I'll apply this, but I really wish there was a
> way to distinguish more easily which of these require alignment and
> which don't.

My guess is the eth_zero_addr and eth_broadcast functions
are always taking aligned(2) arguments, just like all the
is_<foo>_ether_addr functions.

> eth_zero_addr() doesn,t but is_zero_ether_addr() does. So does
> ether_addr_copy(). Frankly, it's getting a bit confusing, so I can't
> really fault anyone for using memset()/memcpy().

I suspect more than anything else all these are historic.

--
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