netdev - Re: [iproute PATCH v2 7/7] ip/tcp_metrics: Simplify process

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20160622130857.GC15980@orbyte.nwl.cc>
Date:	Wed, 22 Jun 2016 15:08:57 +0200
From:	Phil Sutter <phil@....cc>
To:	David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
Cc:	'Jakub Sitnicki' <jkbs@...hat.com>,
	Stephen Hemminger <shemming@...cade.com>,
	Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
	David Ahern <dsa@...ulusnetworks.com>,
	Nicolas Dichtel <nicolas.dichtel@...nd.com>,
	Julien Floret <julien.floret@...nd.com>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [iproute PATCH v2 7/7] ip/tcp_metrics: Simplify process_msg a bit

Hi David,

On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 01:00:08PM +0000, David Laight wrote:
> From: Jakub Sitnicki
> > Sent: 22 June 2016 12:34
> ...
> > > -	a = attrs[TCP_METRICS_ATTR_ADDR_IPV4];
> > > -	if (a) {
> > > +	if ((a = attrs[TCP_METRICS_ATTR_ADDR_IPV4])) {
> > 
> > Copy the pointer inside the branch?
> > 
> > Same gain on indentation while keeping checkpatch happy.
> 
> Or as below (hacked from the mails):
> 
> 	a = attrs[TCP_METRICS_ATTR_ADDR_IPV4];
> 	if (a) {
>  		if (f.daddr.family && f.daddr.family != AF_INET)
>  			return 0;
>  		memcpy(&daddr.data, RTA_DATA(a), 4);
>  		daddr.bytelen = 4;
>  		family = AF_INET;
>  		atype = TCP_METRICS_ATTR_ADDR_IPV4;
>  		dlen = RTA_PAYLOAD(a);
> 	} else {
> 		a = attrs[TCP_METRICS_ATTR_ADDR_IPV6];
> 		if (!a)
> 			return 0;
> 		memcpy(&daddr.data, RTA_DATA(a), 16);
> 		daddr.bytelen = 16;
> 		family = AF_INET6;
> 		atype = TCP_METRICS_ATTR_ADDR_IPV6;
> 		dlen = RTA_PAYLOAD(a);
> 	}

Yes, this should work as well and require less code changes overall.
Though I think it's less readable:

| if (a) {
| 	do a;
| else {
| 	if (!b)
| 		return;
| 	do b;
| }

vs.

| if (a) {
| 	do a;
| } else if (b) {
| 	do b;
| } else {
| 	return;
| }

Don't you think?

Thanks, Phil