netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 07/10] ethtool: cmis_cdb: Add a layer for supporting CDB commands

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <ZhQFV7I3EwW7FV+H@shell.armlinux.org.uk>
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2024 15:55:19 +0100
From: "Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@...linux.org.uk>
To: Danielle Ratson <danieller@...dia.com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com,
	kuba@...nel.org, pabeni@...hat.com, corbet@....net, sdf@...gle.com,
	kory.maincent@...tlin.com, maxime.chevallier@...tlin.com,
	vladimir.oltean@....com, przemyslaw.kitszel@...el.com,
	ahmed.zaki@...el.com, richardcochran@...il.com, shayagr@...zon.com,
	paul.greenwalt@...el.com, jiri@...nulli.us,
	linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	mlxsw@...dia.com, petrm@...dia.com, idosch@...dia.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 07/10] ethtool: cmis_cdb: Add a layer for
 supporting CDB commands

On Mon, Apr 08, 2024 at 03:53:37PM +0300, Danielle Ratson wrote:
> +/**
> + * struct ethtool_cmis_cdb_request - CDB commands request fields as decribed in
> + *				the CMIS standard
> + * @id: Command ID.
> + * @epl_len: EPL memory length.
> + * @lpl_len: LPL memory length.
> + * @chk_code: Check code for the previous field and the payload.
> + * @resv1: Added to match the CMIS standard request continuity.
> + * @resv2: Added to match the CMIS standard request continuity.
> + * @payload: Payload for the CDB commands.
> + */
> +struct ethtool_cmis_cdb_request {
> +	__be16 id;
> +	struct_group(body,
> +		u16 epl_len;

u16 with a struct that also uses __be16 looks suspicious.

> +		u8 lpl_len;
> +		u8 chk_code;
> +		u8 resv1;
> +		u8 resv2;
> +		u8 payload[ETHTOOL_CMIS_CDB_LPL_MAX_PL_LENGTH];
> +	);

Does it matter if the compiler inserts some padding before this struct
group?

> +/**
> + * struct ethtool_cmis_cdb_rpl_hdr - CDB commands reply header arguments
> + * @rpl_len: Reply length.
> + * @rpl_chk_code: Reply check code.
> + */
> +struct ethtool_cmis_cdb_rpl_hdr {
> +	u8 rpl_len;
> +	u8 rpl_chk_code;

Does it matter if the compiler adds some padding here?

-- 
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTP is here! 80Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!