netdev - Re: misleading comment in netdevice.h?

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]

Date:   Fri, 24 Aug 2018 13:33:50 +0200
From:   Michal Kubecek <mkubecek@...e.cz>
To:     netdev@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     rpjday@...shcourse.ca
Subject: Re: misleading comment in netdevice.h?

On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 06:58:38AM -0400, rpjday@...shcourse.ca wrote:
>   just pedantry here ... was perusing include/linux/netdevice.h, and in the
> declaration for struct net_device, the kerneldoc, one reads:
> 
>  *      @flags:         Interface flags (a la BSD)
>  *      @priv_flags:    Like 'flags' but invisible to userspace,
>  *                      see if.h for the definitions
> 
> assuming "if.h" means include/uapi/linux/if.h, there is nothing in that
> file explaining the *private* flags; rather, the private flags appear
> to be explained earlier in netdevice.h -- it's the *normal* flags that
> seem to be defined in if.h.

The flag definitions were moved from include/uapi/linux/if.h to
include/linux/netdevice.h by commit 7aa98047df95 ("net: move net_device
priv_flags out from UAPI"). The comment is outdated - it was actually
written when the definitions were still in include/linux/if.h (before
the UAPI split). You may want to submit a patch fixing (or removing) it.

Michal Kubecek