linux-kernel - Re: idio{,ma}tic typos (was Re: + fix-vm_can_nonlinear-check-in-sys_remap_file

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, 11 Oct 2007 05:00:55 -0400
From:	Kyle Moffett <mrmacman_g4@....com>
To:	Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...ru>
Cc:	Josh Triplett <josh@...edesktop.org>,
	Al Viro <viro@....linux.org.uk>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	davej@...emonkey.org.uk, Pierre Ossman <drzeus@...eus.cx>,
	akpm@...l.org, linux-sparse@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: idio{,ma}tic typos (was Re: + fix-vm_can_nonlinear-check-in-sys_remap_file_pages.patch added to -mm tree)

On Oct 11, 2007, at 03:35:37, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
> Sadly, yes.
>
> [PATCH] smctr: fix "|| 0x" typo
>
> IBM_PASS_SOURCE_ADDR is 1, so logically ORing it with status bits is
> pretty useless. Do bitwise OR, instead.
>
> Signed-off-by: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...ru>
> ---
>
>  drivers/net/tokenring/smctr.c |    2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> --- a/drivers/net/tokenring/smctr.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/tokenring/smctr.c
> @@ -3413,7 +3413,7 @@ static int smctr_make_tx_status_code(struct  
> net_device *dev,
>          tsv->svi = TRANSMIT_STATUS_CODE;
>          tsv->svl = S_TRANSMIT_STATUS_CODE;
>
> -        tsv->svv[0] = ((tx_fstatus & 0x0100 >> 6) ||  
> IBM_PASS_SOURCE_ADDR);
> +        tsv->svv[0] = ((tx_fstatus & 0x0100 >> 6) |  
> IBM_PASS_SOURCE_ADDR);
>
>          /* Stripped frame status of Transmitted Frame */
>          tsv->svv[1] = tx_fstatus & 0xff;

Hmm, here's a question for you:  The old code was equivalent to "tsv- 
 >svv[0] = 1;", what's your proof that we don't rely on this "bug"  
elsewhere in the code?  In other words, this is a significant  
behavior change (albeit fixing an apparent bug) from what we've done  
for a while.  You might want to do a git-blame on this bit of code to  
see who the last person to modify it was and ask them to test or  
confirm the patch first.  The same general questions apply to the  
other logical-op bugs.

Cheers,
Kyle Moffett

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/