linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/5] cifsd: add server-side procedures for SMB3

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:   Thu, 25 Mar 2021 06:25:03 +0100
From:   Sebastian Gottschall <s.gottschall@...wrt.com>
To:     Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>,
        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, colin.king@...onical.com,
        rdunlap@...radead.org,
        'Sergey Senozhatsky' <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
        'Steve French' <stfrench@...rosoft.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] cifsd: add server-side procedures for SMB3


Am 23.03.2021 um 08:19 schrieb Dan Carpenter:
> On Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 08:17:47AM +0900, Namjae Jeon wrote:
>>>> +
>>>> +static int
>>>> +compare_oid(unsigned long *oid1, unsigned int oid1len,
>>>> +	    unsigned long *oid2, unsigned int oid2len) {
>>>> +	unsigned int i;
>>>> +
>>>> +	if (oid1len != oid2len)
>>>> +		return 0;
>>>> +
>>>> +	for (i = 0; i < oid1len; i++) {
>>>> +		if (oid1[i] != oid2[i])
>>>> +			return 0;
>>>> +	}
>>>> +	return 1;
>>>> +}
>>> Call this oid_eq()?
>> Why not compare_oid()? This code is come from cifs.
>> I need clear reason to change both cifs/cifsd...
>>
> Boolean functions should tell you what they are testing in the name.
> Without any context you can't know what if (compare_oid(one, two)) {
> means, but if (oid_equal(one, two)) { is readable.
>
> regards,
> dan carpenter
ahm just a pointless comment. but
return !memcmp(oid1,oid2, sizeof(long*)*oid1len);
looks much more efficient than this "for" loop
>
>
>