netdev - Re: build failure of next-20220811 due to 332f1795ca20 ("Bluetooth: L2CAP: Fix l2cap_global_chan_by

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:   Thu, 11 Aug 2022 13:37:03 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     Luiz Augusto von Dentz <luiz.dentz@...il.com>
Cc:     "Sudip Mukherjee (Codethink)" <sudipm.mukherjee@...il.com>,
        Luiz Augusto von Dentz <luiz.von.dentz@...el.com>,
        Johan Hedberg <johan.hedberg@...il.com>,
        Marcel Holtmann <marcel@...tmann.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "open list:NETWORKING [GENERAL]" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-bluetooth@...r.kernel.org" <linux-bluetooth@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-next@...r.kernel.org,
        Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@...ha.franken.de>,
        linux-mips@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: build failure of next-20220811 due to 332f1795ca20 ("Bluetooth:
 L2CAP: Fix l2cap_global_chan_by_psm regression")

On Thu, 11 Aug 2022 13:20:52 -0700 Luiz Augusto von Dentz wrote:
> > +static inline int ba_is_any(const bdaddr_t *ba)
> > +{
> > +       return memchr_inv(ba, sizeof(*ba), 0);
> > +}  
> 
> So we can't use something like BDADDR_ANY to compare? Anyway afaik
> these were already present before the patch so I do wonder what had
> trigger it show now or perhaps it was being suppressed before and
> since we change it now start showing again?

Yeah, I mentioned that in my previous reply as well, a quick grep
counts 70 instances, IDK what makes the l2cap code different :S
Then again I don't know how the compiler deals with passing a pointer
to a constant to an inline function.... so I figured memchr_inv()
could help us avoid hitting compiler bugs.