netdev - Re: [PATCH next] sctp: make use of WORD

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: <b14bab91-cd8b-221b-a3de-75c97bba67f7@gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 19 Sep 2016 00:05:54 -0300
From:   Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <marcelo.leitner@...il.com>
To:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-sctp@...r.kernel.org,
        nhorman@...driver.com, vyasevich@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH next] sctp: make use of WORD_TRUNC macro

Em 18-09-2016 23:06, David Miller escreveu:
> From: Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <marcelo.leitner@...il.com>
> Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2016 15:12:30 -0300
>
>> No functional change. Just to avoid the usage of '&~3'.
>> Also break the line to make it easier to read.
>
> You're reply later in this thread:
>
> 	"to make sure it is correctly adapted to some arch if
> 	necessary. (even though it's not necessary in this case)"
>
> is inconsistent with your commit log message.
>
> If you think that the word size might possibly be different
> on a given arch, then this is in fact a functional change.
>

Alright, that was badly worded, sorry. I meant not about the macro in 
specific but in a more general way, as in to not use magic hardcoded 
values, just that.

> This patch just adds ambiguity.  Whereas the existing code is explicit
> about "multiple of 4" and there can be no confusion.
>

On the other hand, it brings the code closer to a standard. This is the 
one but last occurrence of '~3' throughout sctp code. There is only one 
other spot left. All of them are using WORD_ROUND or WORD_TRUNC macros 
already.

We can rename the macros, I agree they sound confusing. Proposing 
SCTP_ALIGN4 and SCTP_TRUNC4. Does that sound better? Then I'll send a 
patchset renaming and updating all remaining places.

> I'm not applying this, sorry.
>