netdev - Re: [PATCH mlx5-next 07/10] net/mlx5: E-Switch, Change vhca id valid bool field to bit flag

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:   Mon, 10 Dec 2018 23:05:25 +0200
From:   Or Gerlitz <gerlitz.or@...il.com>
To:     Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@....mellanox.co.il>
Cc:     Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...lanox.com>,
        Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...lanox.com>,
        Leon Romanovsky <leonro@...lanox.com>,
        Linux Netdev List <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        RDMA mailing list <linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org>,
        Eli Britstein <elibr@...lanox.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH mlx5-next 07/10] net/mlx5: E-Switch, Change vhca id valid
 bool field to bit flag

On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 10:09 PM Saeed Mahameed
<saeedm@....mellanox.co.il> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 8:12 AM Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...lanox.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, Dec 09, 2018 at 07:04:39PM -0800, Saeed Mahameed wrote:
> > > From: Eli Britstein <elibr@...lanox.com>
> > >
> > > Change the driver flow destination struct to use bit flags with the vhca
> > > id valid being the 1st one. Done to avoid bool fields in structs, as
> > > warned by static checkers, with no functionality change.
> >
> > This is a thing now? I thought the warning was not to use bool with
> > bitfields for some reason?
> >
>
> Yea, the commit message is kinda silly,

hey, sometimes you just want to make your boss happy:

CHECK: Avoid using bool structure members because of possible
alignment issues - see: https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/11/21/384
#99: FILE: include/linux/mlx5/fs.h:99:
+                       bool            vhca_id_valid;

missed anything?