linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next 13/14] wireless: Use eth_<foo>

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:	Tue, 03 Mar 2015 09:44:55 +0100
From:	Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
To:	Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 13/14] wireless: Use eth_<foo>_addr instead of
 memset


> > Other than that, I guess I'll apply this, but I really wish there was a
> > way to distinguish more easily which of these require alignment and
> > which don't.
> 
> My guess is the eth_zero_addr and eth_broadcast functions
> are always taking aligned(2) arguments, just like all the
> is_<foo>_ether_addr functions.

Err, are you serious??? That *clearly* isn't true, and if it was then
this patch wouldn't be safe at all.

> > eth_zero_addr() doesn,t but is_zero_ether_addr() does. So does
> > ether_addr_copy(). Frankly, it's getting a bit confusing, so I can't
> > really fault anyone for using memset()/memcpy().
> 
> I suspect more than anything else all these are historic.

I'd expect a mix here, certainly. Not all of them are really old though.

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/