netdev - Re: [B.A.T.M.A.N.] [PATCH v2 3/5] batman: use BIT_ULL for NL80211_STA_INFO

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:   Thu, 14 Jun 2018 12:50:13 +0000
From:   Omer Efrat <omer.efrat@...demg.com>
To:     Sven Eckelmann <sven@...fation.org>,
        Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
CC:     "b.a.t.m.a.n@...ts.open-mesh.org" <b.a.t.m.a.n@...ts.open-mesh.org>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org" <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [B.A.T.M.A.N.] [PATCH v2 3/5] batman: use BIT_ULL for
 NL80211_STA_INFO_* attribute types

Sven Eckelmann wrote:
>@Omer: If you want it as cleanup patch then make it clear in the patch that
>the warning you've showed here is not actually not something which you will
>see in in the modified code.

I will send v3 as clean up patch.

Omer Efrat.

________________________________________
From: Sven Eckelmann <sven@...fation.org>
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2018 2:20:17 PM
To: Johannes Berg
Cc: b.a.t.m.a.n@...ts.open-mesh.org; Omer Efrat; netdev@...r.kernel.org; linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [B.A.T.M.A.N.] [PATCH v2 3/5] batman: use BIT_ULL for NL80211_STA_INFO_* attribute types

On Donnerstag, 14. Juni 2018 13:05:16 CEST Johannes Berg wrote:
[...]
> > in commit 739960f128e5 ("cfg80211/nl80211: Add support for
> > NL80211_STA_INFO_RX_DURATION")
>
> Yeah, which actually means this patch isn't needed?
>
> BIT(NL80211_STA_INFO_EXPECTED_THROUGHPUT) is fine since
> NL80211_STA_INFO_EXPECTED_THROUGHPUT is actually == 27.

Hadn't verified this before but this would make sense. So no fixes here - just
some "cleanup" patch to make these tests more consistent. Thanks for checking.

@Omer: If you want it as cleanup patch then make it clear in the patch that
the warning you've showed here is not actually not something which you will
see in in the modified code.

Kind regards,
        Sven