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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20250219093018.7907296f@gmx.net>
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2025 09:30:18 +0100
From: Peter Seiderer <ps.report@....net>
To: Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>
Cc: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, 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

Hello *,

On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 13:29:05 +0000, Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org> wrote:

> On Mon, Feb 17, 2025 at 09:47:40AM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > 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?
>
> Yes, I see your point.
> No objections from me to skipping this patch.

O.k., will re-send the patch set without this one and the
rev-by for patch 2 added...

Regards,
Peter