netdev - Re: [PATCH 2/3] Seperate DSACK from SACK fast path

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: <E1HBOiV-0007bt-00@gondolin.me.apana.org.au>
Date:	Mon, 29 Jan 2007 16:06:07 +1100
From:	Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
To:	baruch@...en.org (Baruch Even)
Cc:	davem@...emloft.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] Seperate DSACK from SACK fast path

Baruch Even <baruch@...en.org> wrote:
>> 
>> > Since the SACK receive cache doesn't need the data to be in host
>> > order we also remove the ntohl in the checking loop.
>>  ...
>> > -   for (i = 0; i< num_sacks; i++) {
>> > -           __u32 start_seq = ntohl(sp[i].start_seq);
>> > -           __u32 end_seq =  ntohl(sp[i].end_seq);
>> > +   for (i = 0; i < num_sacks; i++) {
>> > +           __u32 start_seq = sp[i].start_seq;
>> > +           __u32 end_seq = sp[i].end_seq;
> 
> Yes. The only comparison we do with recv_sack_cache entries is != and
> that works for net-endian just fine.

In that case you need to use __be32 before Al Viro starts coming after
you :)
-- 
Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/
Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt
-
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