netdev - Re: [PATCH] mld, igmp: Fix reserved tailroom calculation

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: <56D48DCE.3090705@stressinduktion.org>
Date:	Mon, 29 Feb 2016 19:28:30 +0100
From:	Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>
To:	Benjamin Poirier <bpoirier@...e.com>
Cc:	Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
	Hideaki YOSHIFUJI <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mld, igmp: Fix reserved tailroom calculation

On 29.02.2016 19:08, Benjamin Poirier wrote:
> If you think we should write the expression with "if" instead of "min",
> instead of the current
>
> +	skb->reserved_tailroom = skb_tailroom(skb) -
> +		min_t(int, mtu, skb_tailroom(skb) - tlen);
>
> it should be:
>
> +	if (mtu < skb_tailroom(skb) - tlen)
> +		skb->reserved_tailroom = skb_tailroom(skb) - mtu;
> +	else
> +		skb->reserved_tailroom = tlen;
>
> The second alternative does not look more readable to me but I have been
> looking at that expression for a while. If you think that it is more
> readable, I will resend the patch expressed that way. Please let me
> know.

I would still find it more readable actually, but no strong opinion, I 
would leave it up to you.

Could it make sense to put this code into a static inline helper and 
reuse it for both, igmp and mld?

Thanks,
Hannes