netdev - Re: [PATCH net] lib: packing: fix shift wrapping in bit

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]

Message-ID: <20221209220651.i43mxhz5aczhhjgs@skbuf>
Date:   Sat, 10 Dec 2022 00:06:51 +0200
From:   Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>
To:     Uladzislau Koshchanka <koshchanka@...il.com>
Cc:     Dan Carpenter <error27@...il.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] lib: packing: fix shift wrapping in bit_reverse()

On Sat, Dec 10, 2022 at 12:01:28AM +0300, Uladzislau Koshchanka wrote:
> Hi Vladimir,
> 
> > The problem I see with bitrev8 is that the byte_rev_table[] can
> > seemingly be built as a module (the BITREVERSE Kconfig knob is tristate,
> > and btw your patch doesn't make PACKING select BITREVERSE). But PACKING
> > is bool. IIRC, I got comments during review that it's not worth making
> > packing a module, but I may remember wrong.
> 
> Do you really think it's a problem? I personally would just select
> BITREVERSE with/without making PACKING tristate. BITREVERSE is already
> selected by CRC32 which defaults to y, so just adding a select isn't a
> change in the default. Can't think of a practical point in avoiding
> linking against 256 bytes here.
> 
> In any case, it just doesn't look right to have multiple bit-reverse
> implementations only because of Kconfig relations.

Ok, let's use BITREVERSE then. Could you submit your patch formally please?