netdev - Re: [PATCH net] macsec: Fix header length if SCI is added if explicitily disabled

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]

Date:   Mon, 24 Oct 2016 15:38:57 +0200
From:   Sabrina Dubroca <sd@...asysnail.net>
To:     Tobias Brunner <tobias@...ongswan.org>
Cc:     "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] macsec: Fix header length if SCI is added if
 explicitily disabled

2016-10-24, 15:32:40 +0200, Tobias Brunner wrote:
> > [snip]
> >> @@ -440,12 +448,12 @@ static void macsec_fill_sectag(struct macsec_eth_header *h,
> >>  			       const struct macsec_secy *secy, u32 pn)
> >>  {
> >>  	const struct macsec_tx_sc *tx_sc = &secy->tx_sc;
> >> +	bool sci_present = send_sci(secy);
> > 
> > You're already computing this in macsec_encrypt() just before calling
> > macsec_fill_sectag(), so you could pass it as argument instead of
> > recomputing it.
> 
> Right, I'll send a v2.  Would you like me to inline the send_sci()
> function, as it will only be called once afterwards.

I think keeping the send_sci() function is okay, but if you prefer to
inline it, I don't mind.

-- 
Sabrina