netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 02/14] sfc: Add sysfs entry for flags (link control and primary)

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: <556864ED.1080408@solarflare.com>
Date:	Fri, 29 May 2015 14:09:01 +0100
From:	Edward Cree <ecree@...arflare.com>
To:	David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
CC:	'Shradha Shah' <sshah@...arflare.com>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-net-drivers@...arflare.com" <linux-net-drivers@...arflare.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 02/14] sfc: Add sysfs entry for flags (link control
 and primary)

On 29/05/15 11:48, David Laight wrote:
> From: Shradha Shah
>> Sent: 29 May 2015 11:01
>> On  every adapter there will be one primary PF per adaptor and
>> one link control PF per port.
> ...
>> +	return sprintf(buf, "%d\n",
>> +		       ((efx->mcdi->fn_flags) &
>> +			(1 << MC_CMD_DRV_ATTACH_EXT_OUT_FLAG_LINKCTRL))
>> +		       ? 1 : 0);
> Horrid expression.
> Why not:
> 	(efx->mcdi->fn_flags >> MC_CMD_DRV_ATTACH_EXT_OUT_FLAG_LINKCTRL) & 1
I think the idea is that this is more explicit about what it's doing.
It's a toss-up which is more readable / idiomatic; I prefer the OP version.
(They probably compile to the same thing, though I haven't checked.)
> using sprintf() is also excessive. Maybe:
> 	*buf = '0' + (expression);
> 	return 1;
That loses the '\n'; it's annoying when you cat a file and it doesn't end in a '\n', because it gloms onto your shell prompt.
sprintf isn't really that expensive, this isn't likely to be called very frequently.
> You may also need to check for buffer overrun.
In fact Documentation/filesystems/sysfs.txt says that "show() should always use scnprintf()" and that "The buffer will always be PAGE_SIZE bytes in length."
So if we want to be consistent, it should be

	return scnprintf(buf, PAGE_SIZE, "%d\n", expression);

although it'd be rather surprising if either 0\n or 1\n were ever too big for PAGE_SIZE :grin:.
--
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