linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] kernel: bpf: remove dead code

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:   Mon, 22 May 2017 19:00:14 +0200
From:   Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
To:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
CC:     garsilva@...eddedor.com, ast@...nel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kernel: bpf: remove dead code

On 05/22/2017 06:27 PM, David Miller wrote:
[...]
> Ok I understand the issue now.  Thanks for explaining.
>
> I guess a hard-coded value of 2 and an adjusted comment above the
> assignment of ip_align is the way to go.
>
> I'll push the following, thanks everyone:
>
> ====================
> net: Make IP alignment calulations clearer.
>
> The assignmnet:
>
> 	ip_align = strict ? 2 : NET_IP_ALIGN;
>
> in compare_pkt_ptr_alignment() trips up Coverity because we can only
> get to this code when strict is true, therefore ip_align will always
> be 2 regardless of NET_IP_ALIGN's value.
>
> So just assign directly to '2' and explain the situation in the
> comment above.
>
> Reported-by: "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <garsilva@...eddedor.com>
> Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@...emloft.net>

Yeah, that's fine, thanks!

Acked-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>