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  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]
Date:	Tue, 16 Jan 2007 22:34:43 -0500
From:	Brandon Craig Rhodes <brandon@...desmill.org>
To:	Mitchell Blank Jr <mitch@...oth.com>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: TKIP encryption should allocate enough tailroom

Mitchell Blank Jr <mitch@...oth.com> writes:

> Brandon Craig Rhodes wrote:
>
>> +		if (unlikely(err || skb_tailroom(skb) < 4)) {
>> +			printk(KERN_DEBUG "Failed to increase tailroom"
>> +			       " for TKIP encrypt");
>> +			return err || -1;
>
> The "||" operator in C doesn't act the same way it does in perl and ruby.
> You're always returning 1 here.

Egads!  You are correct.

My intention was to preserve the value of "err" if an unsuccessful
value was returned by skb_padto(), and otherwise to return "-1" which
seemed the popular value used for errors elsewhere in the code.

 - Would the expression "err ? err : -1" have served me better?
 - Do error codes mean anything here, or should I simply say "return -1"?

-- 
Brandon Craig Rhodes   brandon@...desmill.org   http://rhodesmill.org/brandon
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Powered by blists - more mailing lists