netdev - Re: [PATCH] skb: add a comment to skb_csum

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: <20130122.231353.2100388787067184936.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Tue, 22 Jan 2013 23:13:53 -0500 (EST)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	sanagi.koki@...fujitsu.com
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] skb: add a comment to skb_csum_unnecessary to avoid
 miuse

From: "Sanagi, Koki" <sanagi.koki@...fujitsu.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2013 02:32:52 +0000

>> From: Koki Sanagi <sanagi.koki@...fujitsu.com>
>> Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2013 09:30:16 +0900
>> 
>> > Due to its name and appearance, someone thinks this only checks if
>> > ip_summed is CHECKSUM_UNNECESARRY.  But actually, this returns true
>> > even if ip_summed is CHECKSUM_PARTIAL.  To avoid misuse, this patch a
>> > comment which specifies that CHECKSUM_PARTIAL is OK.
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Koki Sanagi <sanagi.koki@...fujitsu.com>
>> 
>> I'm not applying this, sorry.  It's a one line function and it's not so
>> non-obvious that it deserves an 8 line comment.
> 
> OK.  I just felt weird that CHECKSUM_* is not bit flag but this function handles
> it as if it was bit flag.

The function name says what it does, it determines whether a checksum
is necessary or not.  How that is implemented is another issue.
--
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