linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC net-next v2 03/12] net: mdio: mdiobus

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: <37247c17e5e555dddbc37c3c63a2cadb@walle.cc>
Date:   Tue, 03 Jan 2023 11:21:08 +0100
From:   Michael Walle <michael@...le.cc>
To:     "Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@...linux.org.uk>
Cc:     Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        Jose Abreu <Jose.Abreu@...opsys.com>,
        Sergey Shtylyov <s.shtylyov@....ru>,
        Wei Fang <wei.fang@....com>,
        Shenwei Wang <shenwei.wang@....com>,
        Clark Wang <xiaoning.wang@....com>,
        NXP Linux Team <linux-imx@....com>,
        Sean Wang <sean.wang@...iatek.com>,
        Landen Chao <Landen.Chao@...iatek.com>,
        DENG Qingfang <dqfext@...il.com>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>,
        Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-renesas-soc@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org, Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@...der.be>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC net-next v2 03/12] net: mdio: mdiobus_register: update
 validation test

Hi Russell,

Am 2023-01-03 11:13, schrieb Russell King (Oracle):
> On Wed, Dec 28, 2022 at 12:07:19AM +0100, Michael Walle wrote:
>> +	if (!bus || !bus->name)
>> +		return -EINVAL;
>> +
>> +	/* An access method always needs both read and write operations */
>> +	if ((bus->read && !bus->write) ||
>> +	    (!bus->read && bus->write) ||
>> +	    (bus->read_c45 && !bus->write_c45) ||
>> +	    (!bus->read_c45 && bus->write_c45))
> 
> I wonder whether the following would be even more readable:
> 
> 	if (!bus->read != !bus->write || !bus->read_c45 != !bus->write_c45)

That's what Andrew had originally. But there was a comment from Sergey 
[1]
which I agree with. I had a hard time wrapping my head around that, so I
just listed all the possible bad cases.

I don't have a strong opinion, though.

> which essentially asserts that the boolean of !method for the read and
> write methods must match.

Maybe with that as a comment?

-michael

[1] 
https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/ae79823f-3697-feee-32e6-645c6f4b4e93@omp.ru/