netdev - Re: lib/packing.c behaving weird if buffer length is not multiple of 4 with QUIRK_LSW32_IS

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: <7f9c481a-28a9-439f-a051-5fd9d44aa5a5@intel.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2024 16:41:01 -0700
From: Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@...el.com>
To: Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>
CC: "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: lib/packing.c behaving weird if buffer length is not multiple of
 4 with QUIRK_LSW32_IS_FIRST



On 8/21/2024 1:21 PM, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 21, 2024 at 12:12:00PM -0700, Jacob Keller wrote:
>> Ok. I'll investigate this, and I will send the two fixes for lib/packing
>> in my series to implement the support in ice. That would help on our end
>> with managing the changes since it avoids an interdependence between
>> multiple series in flight.
> 
> There's one patch in there which replaces the packing(PACK) call with a
> dedicated pack() function, and packing(UNPACK) with unpack(). The idea
> being that it helps with const correctness. I still have some mixed
> feelings about this, because a multiplexed packing() call is in some
> ways more flexible, but apparently others felt bad enough about the
> packing() API to tell me about it, and that stuck with me.
> 
> I'm mentioning it because if you're going to use the API, you could at
> least consider using the const-correct form, so that there's one less
> driver to refactor later.

Yep! I've got those patches in my series now. Though I should note that
I did not include any of the patches for the other drivers. I'll CC you
when I send the series out, though it may likely go through our
Intel-Wired-LAN tree first.

I've refactored your self tests into KUnit tests as well!