[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1461146278.10638.253.camel@edumazet-glaptop3.roam.corp.google.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2016 02:57:58 -0700
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To: nicolas.dichtel@...nd.com
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net,
roopa@...ulusnetworks.com, tgraf@...g.ch, jhs@...atatu.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/4] netlink: fix test alignment in
nla_align_64bit()
On Wed, 2016-04-20 at 11:44 +0200, Nicolas Dichtel wrote:
> Le 20/04/2016 11:33, Eric Dumazet a écrit :
> [snip]
> > How have you tested your patch exactly ?
> As stated in the cover letter, I didn't test it.
You certainly can test this, by tweaking HAVE_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS
and adding another assertion in the code.
By testing it you would have caught a real bug, since David incorrectly
used HAVE_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS instead of
CONFIG_HAVE_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS
;)
diff --git a/include/net/netlink.h b/include/net/netlink.h
index e644b3489acf..ea6872633a92 100644
--- a/include/net/netlink.h
+++ b/include/net/netlink.h
@@ -1244,7 +1244,7 @@ static inline int nla_validate_nested(const struct nlattr *start, int maxtype,
*/
static inline int nla_align_64bit(struct sk_buff *skb, int padattr)
{
-#ifndef HAVE_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS
+#ifndef CONFIG_HAVE_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS
if (IS_ALIGNED((unsigned long)skb->data, 8)) {
struct nlattr *attr = nla_reserve(skb, padattr, 0);
if (!attr)
@@ -1261,7 +1261,7 @@ static inline int nla_align_64bit(struct sk_buff *skb, int padattr)
static inline int nla_total_size_64bit(int payload)
{
return NLA_ALIGN(nla_attr_size(payload))
-#ifndef HAVE_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS
+#ifndef CONFIG_HAVE_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS
+ NLA_ALIGN(nla_attr_size(0))
#endif
;
Powered by blists - more mailing lists