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: <00d901d71f90$cdfd24f0$69f76ed0$@samsung.com>
Date:   Tue, 23 Mar 2021 12:01:22 +0900
From:   "Namjae Jeon" <namjae.jeon@...sung.com>
To:     "'Matthew Wilcox'" <willy@...radead.org>
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?
I don't remember exactly, but back then, It looked easier...
> 
> > +#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
They are used in many place.
./smb2pdu.c:            *rsp = RESPONSE_BUF_NEXT(work);
./smb2pdu.c:            err_rsp = RESPONSE_BUF_NEXT(work);
./smb2pdu.c:            rsp_hdr = RESPONSE_BUF_NEXT(work);
./smb2pdu.c:    struct smb2_hdr *hdr = RESPONSE_BUF_NEXT(work);
./smb2pdu.c:    struct smb2_hdr *rsp = RESPONSE_BUF_NEXT(work);
./smb2pdu.c:    rsp_hdr = RESPONSE_BUF_NEXT(work);
./smb2pdu.c:            rsp = RESPONSE_BUF_NEXT(work);
./smb2pdu.c:            rsp = RESPONSE_BUF_NEXT(work);
./smb2pdu.c:            hdr = RESPONSE_BUF_NEXT(work);
./smb2pdu.c:            hdr = RESPONSE_BUF_NEXT(work);
./smb2pdu.c:            rsp = RESPONSE_BUF_NEXT(work);

./smb2pdu.c:            *req = REQUEST_BUF_NEXT(work);
./smb2pdu.c:            rcv_hdr = REQUEST_BUF_NEXT(work);
./smb2pdu.c:    struct smb2_hdr *req_hdr = REQUEST_BUF_NEXT(work);
./smb2pdu.c:    struct smb2_hdr *req = REQUEST_BUF_NEXT(work);
./smb2pdu.c:    rcv_hdr = REQUEST_BUF_NEXT(work);
./smb2pdu.c:    hdr = REQUEST_BUF_NEXT(work);
./smb2pdu.c:            req = REQUEST_BUF_NEXT(work);
./smb2pdu.c:            req = REQUEST_BUF_NEXT(work);
./smb2pdu.c:            hdr = REQUEST_BUF_NEXT(work);
./smb2pdu.c:    req_hdr = REQUEST_BUF_NEXT(work);
./smb2pdu.c:            hdr = REQUEST_BUF_NEXT(work);
./smb2pdu.c:    req_hdr = REQUEST_BUF_NEXT(work);
> 
> > +#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!
Yep, looks better, Will fix it.

Thanks for your review!