linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next] rtase: Use min() instead of min

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: <aApttwNRkiMP6xMJ@LQ3V64L9R2>
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2025 09:58:31 -0700
From: Joe Damato <jdamato@...tly.com>
To: Justin Lai <justinlai0215@...ltek.com>
Cc: kuba@...nel.org, davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com,
	pabeni@...hat.com, andrew+netdev@...n.ch,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	horms@...nel.org, pkshih@...ltek.com, larry.chiu@...ltek.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] rtase: Use min() instead of min_t()

On Thu, Apr 24, 2025 at 02:21:45PM +0800, Justin Lai wrote:
> Use min() instead of min_t() to avoid the possibility of casting to the
> wrong type.
> 
> Fixes: a36e9f5cfe9e ("rtase: Add support for a pci table in this module")
> Signed-off-by: Justin Lai <justinlai0215@...ltek.com>
> ---
>  drivers/net/ethernet/realtek/rtase/rtase_main.c | 4 ++--
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/realtek/rtase/rtase_main.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/realtek/rtase/rtase_main.c
> index 6251548d50ff..8c902eaeb5ec 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/realtek/rtase/rtase_main.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/realtek/rtase/rtase_main.c
> @@ -1983,7 +1983,7 @@ static u16 rtase_calc_time_mitigation(u32 time_us)
>  	u8 msb, time_count, time_unit;
>  	u16 int_miti;
>  
> -	time_us = min_t(int, time_us, RTASE_MITI_MAX_TIME);
> +	time_us = min(time_us, RTASE_MITI_MAX_TIME);
>  
>  	msb = fls(time_us);
>  	if (msb >= RTASE_MITI_COUNT_BIT_NUM) {
> @@ -2005,7 +2005,7 @@ static u16 rtase_calc_packet_num_mitigation(u16 pkt_num)
>  	u8 msb, pkt_num_count, pkt_num_unit;
>  	u16 int_miti;
>  
> -	pkt_num = min_t(int, pkt_num, RTASE_MITI_MAX_PKT_NUM);
> +	pkt_num = min(pkt_num, RTASE_MITI_MAX_PKT_NUM);
>  
>  	if (pkt_num > 60) {
>  		pkt_num_unit = RTASE_MITI_MAX_PKT_NUM_IDX;

This looks fine to me and the patch is against net-next according to
the subject line (I think?).

I suppose there might be the question of whether this should go
against net (because it has a fixes), but my vote is that this is
cleanup and should go in net-next as titled.

Unless you've seen a bug around this and it should be against net
instead?

I don't know, but I think it is unlikely there would be a bug in the
wild because:
  - RTASE_MITI_DEFAULT_TIME (128)
  - RTASE_MITI_DEFAULT_PKT_NUM (64) 
  - RTASE_MITI_MAX_TIME (491520)
  - RTASE_MITI_MAX_PKT_NUM (240) 

all seem to fit in an int, so I think this change is probably more
of a cleanup than a fixes ?

All that said:

Reviewed-by: Joe Damato <jdamato@...tly.com>