netdev - Re: [PATCH 1/3] bridge: netfilter: checkpatch whitespace fixes

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: <20160608173121.GA25147@salvia>
Date:	Wed, 8 Jun 2016 19:31:21 +0200
From:	Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...filter.org>
To:	Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Cc:	tcharding <me@...in.cc>,
	Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org, coreteam@...filter.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] bridge: netfilter: checkpatch whitespace fixes

On Wed, Jun 08, 2016 at 09:52:30AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Wed, 2016-06-08 at 13:52 +0200, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 07, 2016 at 11:02:30AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2016-06-07 at 19:34 +0200, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Jun 07, 2016 at 10:04:40AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > > > > One more question, is this chunk below correct from
> > > > > coding style point of view?
> > > >         if (info->bitmask & EBT_STP_ROOTADDR) {
> > > >                 verdict = 0;
> > > >                 for (i = 0; i < 6; i++)
> > > > -                       verdict |= (stpc->root[2+i] ^ c->root_addr[i]) &
> > > > -                                  c->root_addrmsk[i];
> > > > +                       verdict |= (stpc->root[2 + i] ^ c->root_addr[i]) &
> > > > +                               c->root_addrmsk[i];
> > > > 
> > > > I think the previous line is fine.
> > > "2+i" or "2 + i", either is OK.
> > > Multiple line statement alignment doesn't
> > > matter much.
> > Sorry, I was actually refering to:
> []
> 
> Hi again Pablo.
> 
> No worries.  I hoped the "doesn't matter much" was clear enough.
> 
> There are many different multiple line statement alignment
> styles in the kernel.
> 
> Alignment to open parenthesis is one of them, and I think it's
> reasonable to standardize on that.
> 
> For multiple line statements without parentheses for alignment,
> I think there isn't one style that's much better than another.
> 
> I slightly prefer the original alignment above myself.

I do too. I can take Tobin's original patch and manually revert this
chunk then, ie.

-                       verdict |= (stpc->root[2+i] ^ c->root_addr[i]) &
-                                  c->root_addrmsk[i];
+                       verdict |= (stpc->root[2 + i] ^ c->root_addr[i]) &
+                               c->root_addrmsk[i];

> Maybe something like this is clearer:
> 
> static bool ebt_test_addr(const uint8_t *root, const char *addr,
> 			  const char *mask)
> {
> 	int i;
> 
> 	for (i = 0; i < ETH_ALEN; i++) {
> 		if ((root[2 + i] ^ addr[i]) & mask[i])
> 			return true;
> 	}
> 
> 	return false;
> }
> 
> Maybe the call should add the + 2 to the first argument
> instead of using + 2 in the loop.

Then you can follow up with a patch to add this function.

Just a suggestion, let me know if this is fine with you.