netdev - Re: [PATCH net 1/2] net/smc: Scan from current RMB list when no position specified

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: <4c8f11e5-d97d-5c9a-69b1-ba11c5857799@linux.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 30 May 2023 22:08:51 +0200
From: Wenjia Zhang <wenjia@...ux.ibm.com>
To: Wen Gu <guwen@...ux.alibaba.com>, kgraul@...ux.ibm.com, jaka@...ux.ibm.com,
        davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com, kuba@...nel.org,
        pabeni@...hat.com
Cc: linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net 1/2] net/smc: Scan from current RMB list when no
 position specified



On 26.05.23 13:49, Wen Gu wrote:
> When finding the first RMB of link group, it should start from the
> current RMB list whose index is 0. So fix it.
> 
> Fixes: b4ba4652b3f8 ("net/smc: extend LLC layer for SMC-Rv2")
> Signed-off-by: Wen Gu <guwen@...ux.alibaba.com>
> ---
>   net/smc/smc_llc.c | 5 ++++-
>   1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/net/smc/smc_llc.c b/net/smc/smc_llc.c
> index a0840b8..8423e8e 100644
> --- a/net/smc/smc_llc.c
> +++ b/net/smc/smc_llc.c
> @@ -578,7 +578,10 @@ static struct smc_buf_desc *smc_llc_get_next_rmb(struct smc_link_group *lgr,
>   {
>   	struct smc_buf_desc *buf_next;
>   
> -	if (!buf_pos || list_is_last(&buf_pos->list, &lgr->rmbs[*buf_lst])) {
> +	if (!buf_pos)
> +		return _smc_llc_get_next_rmb(lgr, buf_lst);
> +
> +	if (list_is_last(&buf_pos->list, &lgr->rmbs[*buf_lst])) {
>   		(*buf_lst)++;
>   		return _smc_llc_get_next_rmb(lgr, buf_lst);
>   	}
It seems too late, but still, why not? :

-	if (!buf_pos || list_is_last(&buf_pos->list, &lgr->rmbs[*buf_lst])) {
-  		(*buf_lst)++;
+	if (list_is_last(&buf_pos->list, &lgr->rmbs[(*buf_lst])++)) {


Thanks,
Wenjia