linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] ubi: expose the volume CRC check skip flag

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]

Message-ID: <20180702084653.566d54bb@bbrezillon>
Date:   Mon, 2 Jul 2018 08:46:53 +0200
From:   Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...tlin.com>
To:     Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Cc:     Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
        Quentin Schulz <quentin.schulz@...tlin.com>,
        dedekind1@...il.com, dwmw2@...radead.org,
        computersforpeace@...il.com, marek.vasut@...il.com,
        linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        thomas.petazzoni@...tlin.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] ubi: expose the volume CRC check skip flag

On Sun, 01 Jul 2018 13:54:32 -0700
Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 2018-07-01 at 22:33 +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> > On Sun, 01 Jul 2018 21:35:57 +0200 Richard Weinberger <richard@....at> wrote:  
> > > Am Donnerstag, 28. Juni 2018, 09:40:53 CEST schrieb Quentin Schulz:  
> > > > Now that we have the logic for skipping CRC check for static UBI volumes
> > > > in the core, let's expose it to users.  
> []
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/mtd/ubi/cdev.c b/drivers/mtd/ubi/cdev.c  
> []
> > > > @@ -622,6 +622,10 @@ static int verify_mkvol_req(const struct ubi_device *ubi,
> > > >  	    req->vol_type != UBI_STATIC_VOLUME)
> > > >  		goto bad;
> > > >  
> > > > +	if (req->flags & UBI_VOL_SKIP_CRC_CHECK_FLG &&  
> > 
> > Oops, missed that req->flags & UBI_VOL_SKIP_CRC_CHECK_FLG check was
> > missing parens (checkpatch --strict should complain about that).  
> 
> Why should checkpatch complain?
> & has higher precedence than &&.
> 

Yes, I know, but I remember checkpatch complaining about that in one
of my patch (maybe it was a slightly different case though). Anyway, I
double checked and, as you report, checkpatch does not complain, so
please ignore this comment (sorry for the noise).