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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Fri, 29 May 2009 01:40:27 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	netdev@...r.kernel.org
CC:	linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH 10/10]: llc: Kill outdated and incorrect comment.


This comment suggested storing two pieces of state in the
LLC skb control block, and in fact we do.  Someone did
the implementation but never killed this todo comment :-)

Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
---
 net/llc/llc_conn.c |    4 ----
 1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/net/llc/llc_conn.c b/net/llc/llc_conn.c
index 3477624..c6bab39 100644
--- a/net/llc/llc_conn.c
+++ b/net/llc/llc_conn.c
@@ -79,10 +79,6 @@ int llc_conn_state_process(struct sock *sk, struct sk_buff *skb)
 
 	if (unlikely(!ev->ind_prim && !ev->cfm_prim)) {
 		/* indicate or confirm not required */
-		/* XXX this is not very pretty, perhaps we should store
-		 * XXX indicate/confirm-needed state in the llc_conn_state_ev
-		 * XXX control block of the SKB instead? -DaveM
-		 */
 		if (!skb->next)
 			goto out_kfree_skb;
 		goto out_skb_put;
-- 
1.6.3

--
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

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ