linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/5] cifsd: add server handler and tranport layers

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: <20210322221816.GW1719932@casper.infradead.org>
Date:   Mon, 22 Mar 2021 22:18:16 +0000
From:   Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To:     Namjae Jeon <namjae.jeon@...sung.com>
Cc:     linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-cifs@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-cifsd-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net, smfrench@...il.com,
        senozhatsky@...omium.org, hyc.lee@...il.com,
        viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, hch@....de, hch@...radead.org,
        ronniesahlberg@...il.com, aurelien.aptel@...il.com,
        aaptel@...e.com, sandeen@...deen.net, dan.carpenter@...cle.com,
        colin.king@...onical.com, rdunlap@...radead.org,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
        Steve French <stfrench@...rosoft.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] cifsd: add server handler and tranport layers

On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 02:13:40PM +0900, Namjae Jeon wrote:
> +#define RESPONSE_BUF(w)		((void *)(w)->response_buf)
> +#define REQUEST_BUF(w)		((void *)(w)->request_buf)

Why do you do this obfuscation?

> +#define RESPONSE_BUF_NEXT(w)	\
> +	((void *)((w)->response_buf + (w)->next_smb2_rsp_hdr_off))
> +#define REQUEST_BUF_NEXT(w)	\
> +	((void *)((w)->request_buf + (w)->next_smb2_rcv_hdr_off))

These obfuscations aren't even used; delete them

> +#define RESPONSE_SZ(w)		((w)->response_sz)
> +
> +#define INIT_AUX_PAYLOAD(w)	((w)->aux_payload_buf = NULL)
> +#define HAS_AUX_PAYLOAD(w)	((w)->aux_payload_sz != 0)

I mean, do you really find it clearer to write:

	if (HAS_AUX_PAYLOAD(work))
than
	if (work->aux_payload_sz)

The unobfuscated version is actually shorter!