netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] net: move inet_dport/inet_num in sock

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]

Date:	Tue, 27 Nov 2012 19:31:54 -0800
From:	Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:	Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@...arflare.com>
Cc:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Ling Ma <ling.ma.program@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] net: move inet_dport/inet_num in sock_common

On Wed, 2012-11-28 at 03:12 +0000, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-11-27 at 18:23 -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> > OK, so it's an and not an or.  Duh.
> [...]
> 
> The way to combine these sorts of comparisons is along the lines of:
> 
> (((left->a ^ right->a) |
>   (left->b ^ right->b) |
>   ...) == 0)
> 
> But when there are big-endian types involved, sparse is likely to
> complain about combining them.

I believe there's only the 2 items that could be combined
for cacheline purposes so using 2 logical tests with AND
seems more readable.  Maybe a single combined test would
be faster.  I don't have equipment at hand to test it.

If you prefer I supposed it could be converted.


--
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