netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 13/14] wireless: Use eth_<foo>

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 03 Mar 2015 00:52:28 -0800
From:	Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:	Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 13/14] wireless: Use eth_<foo>_addr instead of
 memset

On Tue, 2015-03-03 at 09:44 +0100, Johannes Berg wrote:
> > > Other than that, I guess I'll apply this, but I really wish there was a
> > > way to distinguish more easily which of these require alignment and
> > > which don't.
> > 
> > My guess is the eth_zero_addr and eth_broadcast functions
> > are always taking aligned(2) arguments, just like all the
> > is_<foo>_ether_addr functions.
> 
> Err, are you serious???

Yes.

> That *clearly* isn't true, and if it was then
> this patch wouldn't be safe at all.

And why is that?

Until patch 1 of this series, eth_zero_addr and
eth_broadcast_addr was just an inline for a memset.

Even after patch 1, it's effectively still memset.

--
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