linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/3] bridge: fix bridge root block on designated port

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, 13 Mar 2014 15:16:23 -0700
From:	Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>
To:	"Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...not-panic.com>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	kvm@...r.kernel.org, xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org,
	mcgrof@...e.com, bridge@...ts.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] bridge: fix bridge root block on designated port

On Wed, 12 Mar 2014 20:15:27 -0700
"Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...not-panic.com> wrote:

> --- a/net/bridge/br_private.h
> +++ b/net/bridge/br_private.h
> @@ -150,6 +150,7 @@ struct net_bridge_port
>  	u8				priority;
>  	u8				state;
>  	u16				port_no;
> +	bool				root_block_enabled;
>  	unsigned char			topology_change_ack;

It seems a bit confusing to have both a ROOT_BLOCK flag in the
data structure and and additional root_block_enabled flag.
If nothing else it is a waste of space.

Looks like you are changing the meaning slightly. is possible
to have BR_ROOT_BLOCK set but !root_block_enabled? and what about
the inverse?
--
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/