linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V2 1/2] net: Fixup netif_attrmask_next

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20221013203544.110a143c@kernel.org>
Date:   Thu, 13 Oct 2022 20:35:44 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     guoren@...nel.org
Cc:     andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com, davem@...emloft.net,
        edumazet@...gle.com, pabeni@...hat.com, linux@...musvillemoes.dk,
        yury.norov@...il.com, caraitto@...gle.com, willemb@...gle.com,
        jonolson@...gle.com, amritha.nambiar@...el.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        Guo Ren <guoren@...ux.alibaba.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 1/2] net: Fixup netif_attrmask_next_and warning

On Thu, 13 Oct 2022 23:04:58 -0400 guoren@...nel.org wrote:
> -	for (j = -1; j = netif_attrmask_next_and(j, online_mask, mask, nr_ids),
> -	     j < nr_ids;) {
> +	for (j = -1; j < nr_ids;
> +	     j = netif_attrmask_next_and(j, online_mask, mask, nr_ids)) {

This does not look equivalent, have you tested it?

nr_ids is unsigned, doesn't it mean we'll never enter the loop?

Can we instead revert 854701ba4c and take the larger rework Yury 
has posted a week ago into net-next?