netdev - RE: [PATCH ethtool] netlink: settings: Fix for wrong auto-negotiation state

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]

Message-ID:
 <DS0PR11MB80508EB3EDB6C342CE1D7AB983512@DS0PR11MB8050.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2024 05:00:03 +0000
From: <Mohan.Prasad@...rochip.com>
To: <mkubecek@...e.cz>
CC: <f.pfitzner@...gutronix.de>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	<kory.maincent@...tlin.com>, <davem@...emloft.net>, <kuba@...nel.org>,
	<andrew@...n.ch>, <Anbazhagan.Sakthivel@...rochip.com>,
	<Nisar.Sayed@...rochip.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH ethtool] netlink: settings: Fix for wrong auto-negotiation
 state

Hello Michal,

Thank you for the comments.

> On Wed, Oct 16, 2024 at 09:28:47AM +0530, Mohan Prasad J wrote:
> > Auto-negotiation state in json format showed the opposite state due to
> > wrong comparison.
> > Fix for returning the correct auto-neg state implemented.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Mohan Prasad J <mohan.prasad@...rochip.com>
> > ---
> >  netlink/settings.c | 2 +-
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/netlink/settings.c b/netlink/settings.c index
> > dbfb520..a454bfb 100644
> > --- a/netlink/settings.c
> > +++ b/netlink/settings.c
> > @@ -546,7 +546,7 @@ int linkmodes_reply_cb(const struct nlmsghdr
> *nlhdr, void *data)
> >  						(autoneg ==
> AUTONEG_DISABLE) ? "off" : "on");
> >  		else
> >  			print_bool(PRINT_JSON, "auto-negotiation", NULL,
> > -				   autoneg == AUTONEG_DISABLE);
> > +				   (autoneg == AUTONEG_DISABLE) ? false :
> true);
> >  	}
> >  	if (tb[ETHTOOL_A_LINKMODES_MASTER_SLAVE_CFG]) {
> >  		uint8_t val;
> 
> The fix looks correct but isn't
> 
> 	(autoneg == AUTONEG_DISABLE) ? false : true
> 
> just a more complicated way to say
> 
> 	autoneg != AUTONEG_DISABLE
> 
> (and harder to read)?

You are right. (autoneg != AUTONEG_DISABLE) would be more simpler and easy to read. I will update it in the next version.

Thanks,
Mohan Prasad J