netdev - Re: [PATCH RFC v2 1/2] can: fix multiple delivery of a single CAN frame for overlapping CAN filters

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]

Message-ID: <551986F0.8010609@hartkopp.net>
Date:	Mon, 30 Mar 2015 19:25:04 +0200
From:	Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@...tkopp.net>
To:	Sergei Shtylyov <sergei.shtylyov@...entembedded.com>,
	linux-can@...r.kernel.org
CC:	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v2 1/2] can: fix multiple delivery of a single CAN
 frame for overlapping CAN filters

On 30.03.2015 19:14, Sergei Shtylyov wrote:
> On 03/30/2015 06:49 PM, Oliver Hartkopp wrote:
>
>>>> +    /* eliminate multiple filter matches for the same skb */
>>>> +    if (*this_cpu_ptr(ro->uniq_skb) == oskb &&
>>>> +        ktime_equal(*this_cpu_ptr(ro->uniq_tstamp), oskb->tstamp)) {
>>>> +            return;
>
>>>     Over-indented.
>
>> I was asked about that before. AFAIK the *skb is no unique identifier over a
>> longer period of time. But together with the timestamp it becomes unique.
>> Or do you have a better solution to detect identical skbs?
>
>     I just said that *return* was too far to the right, that's all. :-)

Oh, ok ...

I mixed indented with intended %-)

My bad.

Will fix that in v3 too.

Good thing: So far no one complained about the __percpu stuff ...

Many thanks,
Oliver

--
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