netdev - Re: [PATCH] [v3] net: phy: phy drivers should not set SUPPORTED_[Asym

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: <58476ACB.3030206@codeaurora.org>
Date:   Tue, 6 Dec 2016 19:50:03 -0600
From:   Timur Tabi <timur@...eaurora.org>
To:     Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, jon.mason@...adcom.com,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [v3] net: phy: phy drivers should not set
 SUPPORTED_[Asym_]Pause

Florian Fainelli wrote:
>> +	if (phydrv->features & (SUPPORTED_Pause | SUPPORTED_Asym_Pause)) {
>> >+		phydev->supported &= ~(SUPPORTED_Pause | SUPPORTED_Asym_Pause);
>> >+		phydev->supported |= phydrv->features &
>> >+				     (SUPPORTED_Pause | SUPPORTED_Asym_Pause);
> Is not the & (SUPPORTED_Pause | SUPPORTED_Asym_Pause) redundant here anyway?

I'm just trying to be safe.  Can I be certain that those bits are 
already zero?

>
>> >+	} else {
>> >+		phydev->supported |= SUPPORTED_Pause | SUPPORTED_Asym_Pause;
> that part looks good.
>
>> >+	}
>> >+
>> >+	phydev->supported |= SUPPORTED_Pause | SUPPORTED_Asym_Pause;
> but this one basically "undoes" what the if () clause did where we
> checked if either, or one of the two bits was already set?

Ugh, sorry.  I thought I deleted that before sending the patch out. 
I'll send out a v4 tomorrow.

-- 
Sent by an employee of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the
Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation.