netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] em_canid: Ematch rule to match CAN frames according to their CAN IDs

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: <1340890522.6032.22.camel@lolumad>
Date:	Thu, 28 Jun 2012 15:35:22 +0200
From:	Rostislav Lisovy <lisovy@...il.com>
To:	Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@...tkopp.net>
Cc:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-can@...r.kernel.org, lartc@...r.kernel.org,
	pisa@....felk.cvut.cz, sojkam1@....cvut.cz
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] em_canid: Ematch rule to match CAN frames
 according to their CAN IDs

Hello Oliver;

On Tue, 2012-06-26 at 22:07 +0200, Oliver Hartkopp wrote: 
> I found some time for a review. See details inline ...
> 
I agree with quite everything except for following...


> > +				match = true;
> 
> 
> match = 1;
> 
egrep -r "= true;" ./linux-source | wc -l
returns 6770 -- why don't you like "= true"?


> > +				break;
> > +			}
> > +		}
> > +	} else { /* SFF */
> > +		can_id &= CAN_SFF_MASK;
> > +		match = test_bit(can_id, cm->match_sff);
> > +	}
> > +
> 
> 
> return match;
> 
match() function must return 1 or 0, however (from my experience)
test_bit() returns 0 and non-0 (strictly speaking, in my case, 0 and
-1).


> > +				&conf[i],
> > +				sizeof(struct can_filter));
> > +
> > +			cm->eff_rules_count++;
> > +		} else {
> > +			continue;
> > +		}
> 
> 
> omit { } around continue
> 
http://lxr.linux.no/#linux+v3.4.4/Documentation/CodingStyle#L169


> > +	}
> > +
> > +	/* Process SFF frame rules */
> > +	for (i = 0; i < cm->rules_count; i++) {
> > +		if ((conf[i].can_id & CAN_EFF_FLAG) &&
> > +		    (conf[i].can_mask & CAN_EFF_FLAG)) {
> 
> 
> What if CAN_EFF_FLAG is set in can_id but not in can_mask ?
> 
There were small misunderstanding from my side -- this will be rewritten
in the way that EFF_FLAG in mask will determine if we care about the
value of EFF_FLAG in an identifier -- i.e. when EFF_FLAG is set in the
mask, the rule will be added as SFF or EFF only depending on EFF_FLAG
value in the identifier. If EFF_FLAG is 0 in the mask, the rule will be
added as both SFF and EFF.

Regards;
Rostislav

--
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