linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next v5 8/8] net: pktgen: use defines for the various dec/hex number parsing digits lengths

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: <20250217094740.76a25671@kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2025 09:47:40 -0800
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>
Cc: Peter Seiderer <ps.report@....net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, "David S .
 Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Paolo
 Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, Artem Chernyshev
 <artem.chernyshev@...-soft.ru>, Nam Cao <namcao@...utronix.de>, Frederic
 Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v5 8/8] net: pktgen: use defines for the
 various dec/hex number parsing digits lengths

On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 09:17:39 +0000 Simon Horman wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 14, 2025 at 08:11:45PM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > On Thu, 13 Feb 2025 12:00:25 +0100 Peter Seiderer wrote:  
> > > Use defines for the various dec/hex number parsing digits lengths
> > > (hex32_arg/num_arg calls).  
> > 
> > I don't understand the value of this patch, TBH.
> > 
> > Example:
> > 
> > +#define HEX_2_DIGITS 2
> > 
> > -		len = hex32_arg(&user_buffer[i], 2, &tmp_value);
> > +		len = hex32_arg(&user_buffer[i], HEX_2_DIGITS, &tmp_value);
> > 
> > The word hex is already there.
> > There is still a two.
> > I don't think the new define has any explanatory power?
> > 
> > Previous 7 patches look ready indeed.  
> 
> This one is on me. I felt the magic number 2 and so on
> was unclear. But if you prefer the code as-is that is fine by me too.

I agree that it's a bit hard to guess what the call does and what 
the arguments are. To me at least, the constants as named don't help. 
We can get a third opinion, or if none is provided skip the patch for
now?