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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <CAK-6q+iWit1KoHfz-sQOLD3MiONcaHXAJHbL02V3srLx4C7X2Q@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2023 20:22:04 -0400 From: Alexander Aring <aahringo@...hat.com> To: Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com> Cc: Alexander Aring <alex.aring@...il.com>, Stefan Schmidt <stefan@...enfreihafen.org>, linux-wpan@...r.kernel.org, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org, David Girault <david.girault@...vo.com>, Romuald Despres <romuald.despres@...vo.com>, Frederic Blain <frederic.blain@...vo.com>, Nicolas Schodet <nico@...fr.eu.org>, Guilhem Imberton <guilhem.imberton@...vo.com>, Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...tlin.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH wpan-next v4 02/11] ieee802154: Internal PAN management Hi, On Wed, Sep 27, 2023 at 12:10 PM Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com> wrote: > > Hi Alexander, > > > > + > > > +#include <linux/kernel.h> > > > +#include <net/cfg802154.h> > > > +#include <net/af_ieee802154.h> > > > + > > > +/* Checks whether a device address matches one from the PAN list. > > > + * This helper is meant to be used only during PAN management, when we expect > > > + * extended addresses to be used. > > > + */ > > > +static bool cfg802154_device_in_pan(struct ieee802154_pan_device *pan_dev, > > > + struct ieee802154_addr *ext_dev) > > > +{ > > > + if (!pan_dev || !ext_dev) > > > + return false; > > > + > > > + if (ext_dev->mode == IEEE802154_ADDR_SHORT) > > > + return false; > > > + > > > + switch (ext_dev->mode) { > > > + case IEEE802154_ADDR_SHORT: > > > + return pan_dev->short_addr == ext_dev->short_addr; > > > > This is dead code now, it will never be reached, it's checked above > > (Or I don't see it)? I want to help you here. What exactly do you try > > to reach here again? > > It's a left over. All association/disassociation operation so far which > need these checks are operated using extended addressing (from the > spec). I will simplify further this helper. > I see, it makes sense to me. > > > > +bool cfg802154_device_is_parent(struct wpan_dev *wpan_dev, > > > + struct ieee802154_addr *target) > > > +{ > > > + lockdep_assert_held(&wpan_dev->association_lock); > > > + > > > + if (cfg802154_device_in_pan(wpan_dev->parent, target)) > > > + return true; > > > + > > > + return false; > > > > return cfg802154_device_in_pan(...); Why isn't checkpatch warning about that? > > checkpatch does not care I guess, but I can definitely simplify this > return path as well, you're right. > ok. Was a nitpick. Thanks. - Alex
Powered by blists - more mailing lists