netdev - Re: [PATCH 4/11] use ether_addr_equal

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: <52C2E8BA.6000800@candelatech.com>
Date:	Tue, 31 Dec 2013 07:54:34 -0800
From:	Ben Greear <greearb@...delatech.com>
To:	Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>, Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
CC:	Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>,
	Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@....eng.br>,
	kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
	Emmanuel Grumbach <emmanuel.grumbach@...el.com>,
	Intel Linux Wireless <ilw@...ux.intel.com>,
	"John W. Linville" <linville@...driver.com>,
	linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/11]  use ether_addr_equal_64bits

On 12/30/2013 10:32 PM, Julia Lawall wrote:
>>>>> I'm just thinking of a programmer, e.g. changing a struct like this:
>>>>>
>>>>>   struct foo {
>>>>>     u8 addr[ETH_ALEN];
>>>>> -  u16 dummy;
>>>>>   };
>>
>> I don't know of a way to catch that.
>> Anyone else?
>
> Well, one could have a semantic patch that checks for that.  But the
> problem is that it is very slow, and it only covers the cases that I can
> transform automatically, which currently means no pointers, only explicit
> arrays.
>
> On the other hand, I am finding the structure definition, so I can easily
> update the structure definition with an appropriate comment.
>
> struct foo {
>      u8 addr[ETH_ALEN]; /* must be followed by two bytes in the structure */
>      u16 dummy;
> };
>
> Unfortunately it is kind of verbose.  Could there be an attribute?  That
> could even easily be checked.

Can you not just add a build-time macro to check that sizeof(foo) >= 8
for each of these struct foos?  Or, is it required that the dummy field
be there and be not used by anything else?

Thanks,
Ben

>
> julia
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>


-- 
Ben Greear <greearb@...delatech.com>
Candela Technologies Inc  http://www.candelatech.com

--
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