netdev - RE: [PATCH v2 09/11] net: mvpp2: simplify MVPP2_PRS_RI

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:   Wed, 4 Jan 2017 10:14:04 +0000
From:   David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
To:     'Thomas Petazzoni' <thomas.petazzoni@...e-electrons.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
CC:     Nadav Haklai <nadavh@...vell.com>, Hanna Hawa <hannah@...vell.com>,
        "Yehuda Yitschak" <yehuday@...vell.com>,
        Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>,
        "Andrew Lunn" <andrew@...n.ch>,
        Sebastian Hesselbarth <sebastian.hesselbarth@...il.com>,
        Gregory Clement <gregory.clement@...e-electrons.com>,
        "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Stefan Chulski <stefanc@...vell.com>,
        Marcin Wojtas <mw@...ihalf.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v2 09/11] net: mvpp2: simplify MVPP2_PRS_RI_* definitions

From: Thomas Petazzoni
> Sent: 27 December 2016 16:54
> Some of the MVPP2_PRS_RI_* definitions use the ~(value) syntax, which
> doesn't compile nicely on 64-bit. Moreover, those definitions are in
> fact unneeded, since they are always used in combination with a bit
> mask that ensures only the appropriate bits are modified.
> 
> Therefore, such definitions should just be set to 0x0. For example:
> 
>  #define MVPP2_PRS_RI_L2_CAST_MASK              0x600
>  #define MVPP2_PRS_RI_L2_UCAST                  ~(BIT(9) | BIT(10))
>  #define MVPP2_PRS_RI_L2_MCAST                  BIT(9)
>  #define MVPP2_PRS_RI_L2_BCAST                  BIT(10)
> 
> becomes
> 
>  #define MVPP2_PRS_RI_L2_CAST_MASK              0x600
>  #define MVPP2_PRS_RI_L2_UCAST                  0x0
>  #define MVPP2_PRS_RI_L2_MCAST                  BIT(9)
>  #define MVPP2_PRS_RI_L2_BCAST                  BIT(10)
...
Shouldn't MVPP2_PRS_RI_L2_CAST_MASK be defined as
(MVPP2_PRS_RI_L2_MCAST | MVPP2_PRS_RI_L2_BCAST)?

	David