netdev - RE: [EXT] Re: [PATCH net-next 13/17] net: atlantic: MACSec ingress offload HW bindings

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]

Message-ID: <MW2PR18MB2282EAA0B0F3CC9B2BE60027D3CE0@MW2PR18MB2282.namprd18.prod.outlook.com>
Date:   Wed, 25 Mar 2020 12:04:21 +0000
From:   Mark Starovoytov <mstarovoitov@...vell.com>
To:     Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
CC:     Sabrina Dubroca <sd@...asysnail.net>,
        Antoine Tenart <antoine.tenart@...tlin.com>,
        Igor Russkikh <irusskikh@...vell.com>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [EXT] Re: [PATCH net-next 13/17] net: atlantic: MACSec ingress
 offload HW bindings

Hi Joe,

Thanks for your review. These comments will be fixed in the next version of the patch (along with the ones you've shared for patches 14, 16 as well).

Best regards,
Mark.

-----Original Message-----
From: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> 

This sort of code is not very readable.

Using val & 0x0000 is silly.

Using >> 0 and << 0 is pretty useless.

Masking a u16 with 0xffff is also pretty useless.

It seems a lot of this patch does this unnecessarily.