linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/11] use ether_addr_equal

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:	Mon, 30 Dec 2013 22:25:24 +0100
From:	Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
To:	Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>
Cc:	kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
	Emmanuel Grumbach <emmanuel.grumbach@...el.com>,
	Intel Linux Wireless <ilw@...ux.intel.com>,
	"John W. Linville" <linville@...driver.com>,
	linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/11]  use ether_addr_equal_64bits

On Mon, 2013-12-30 at 20:58 +0100, Julia Lawall wrote:

> > Is there any way we could catch (sparse, or some other script?) that
> > struct reorganising won't break the condition needed ("within a
> > structure that contains at least two more bytes")?
> 
> What kind of reorganizing could happen?  Do you mean that the programmer 
> might do at some time in the future, or something the compiler might do?

I'm just thinking of a programmer, e.g. changing a struct like this:

 struct foo {
   u8 addr[ETH_ALEN];
-  u16 dummy;
 };

for example.

johannes

--
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/