linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next] rxrpc: Fix missing IPV6 #ifdef

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: <3080953.1668089385@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
Date:   Thu, 10 Nov 2022 14:09:45 +0000
From:   David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
To:     Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
Cc:     dhowells@...hat.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>,
        Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@...istor.com>,
        linux-afs@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] rxrpc: Fix missing IPV6 #ifdef

Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch> wrote:

> > +#ifdef CONFIG_AF_RXRPC_IPV6
> >  	return ipv6_icmp_error(sk, skb, err, port, info, payload);
> > +#endif
> 
> Can this be if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_AF_RXRPC_IPV6) {} rather than
> #ifdef? It gives better build testing.

Sure.  Does it actually make that much of a difference?  I guess the
declaration is there even if IPV6 is disabled.

David