netdev - RE: [PATCH net-next 02/14] sfc: Add sysfs entry for flags (link control and primary)

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:	Fri, 29 May 2015 10:48:43 +0000
From:	David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
To:	'Shradha Shah' <sshah@...arflare.com>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
CC:	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-net-drivers@...arflare.com" <linux-net-drivers@...arflare.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH net-next 02/14] sfc: Add sysfs entry for flags (link
 control and primary)

From: Shradha Shah
> Sent: 29 May 2015 11:01
> On  every adapter there will be one primary PF per adaptor and
> one link control PF per port.
...
> +	return sprintf(buf, "%d\n",
> +		       ((efx->mcdi->fn_flags) &
> +			(1 << MC_CMD_DRV_ATTACH_EXT_OUT_FLAG_LINKCTRL))
> +		       ? 1 : 0);

Horrid expression.
Why not:
	(efx->mcdi->fn_flags >> MC_CMD_DRV_ATTACH_EXT_OUT_FLAG_LINKCTRL) & 1

using sprintf() is also excessive. Maybe:
	*buf = '0' + (expression);
	return 1;

You may also need to check for buffer overrun.

	David

--
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