netdev - Re: [PATCH] caif: Use UTILITY_NAME_LENGTH instead of hard-coding 16

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]

Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2024 22:47:19 +0100
From: Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@...adoo.fr>
To: Ratheesh Kannoth <rkannoth@...vell.com>
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
 Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
 Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] caif: Use UTILITY_NAME_LENGTH instead of hard-coding 16

Le 18/03/2024 à 04:21, Ratheesh Kannoth a écrit :
> On 2024-03-16 at 15:46:10, Christophe JAILLET (christophe.jaillet@...adoo.fr) wrote:
>> UTILITY_NAME_LENGTH is 16. So better use the former when defining the
>> 'utility_name' array. This makes the intent clearer when it is used around
>> line 260.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@...adoo.fr>
>> ---
>>   net/caif/cfctrl.c | 2 +-
>>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/net/caif/cfctrl.c b/net/caif/cfctrl.c
>> index 8480684f2762..b6d9462f92b9 100644
>> --- a/net/caif/cfctrl.c
>> +++ b/net/caif/cfctrl.c
>> @@ -206,7 +206,7 @@ int cfctrl_linkup_request(struct cflayer *layer,
>>   	u8 tmp8;
>>   	struct cfctrl_request_info *req;
>>   	int ret;
>> -	char utility_name[16];
>> +	char utility_name[UTILITY_NAME_LENGTH];
> Reverse xmas tree.

Hi,

I'll update and repost when net-next is reopened, but honestly, looking 
at this file, changing this to reverse xmas style won't change that much 
for the overall coding style!

Moreover, as said by Dan, it is not really easy to understand the wishes 
of different maintainers. Should I have updated the lay-out, someone 
could have argued that patches should be 1 thing at a time.

CJ

> 
>>   	struct cfpkt *pkt;
>>   	struct cflayer *dn = cfctrl->serv.layer.dn;
>>
>> --
>> 2.44.0
>>
> 
>