netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v8 03/10] lib: packing: add pack_fields() and unpack

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: <20241205095221.ivb3gnrhkfdyulxy@skbuf>
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2024 11:52:21 +0200
From: Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com>
To: Przemek Kitszel <przemyslaw.kitszel@...el.com>
Cc: Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@...el.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
	Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
	Tony Nguyen <anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com>,
	Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org>,
	netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v8 03/10] lib: packing: add pack_fields() and
 unpack_fields()

On Thu, Dec 05, 2024 at 12:43:35AM +0100, Przemek Kitszel wrote:
> On 12/4/24 18:12, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 03, 2024 at 03:53:49PM -0800, Jacob Keller wrote:
> 
> Amazing stuff :), I really like the fact that you both keep striving for
> the best result, even way past the point of cut off of most other ;)

It's all Jake. I openly admit I would have given up and not followed
through with the review feedback to go to modpost and back.
Additionally, the __builtin_choose_expr() breakthrough was all his.

Jake's determination, perseverence, discipline and level of skill are
something to aspire to. It's safe to say that without him, this set
would have gotten nowhere.

> prior to the change CHECK_PACKED_FIELD() was called on values smaller
> than MAX_PACKED_FIELD_SIZE, compare with [j] above, now you call it also
> for the MAX one
(...)
> 
> off by one error? see above

Yes, indeed, thank you for pointing this out. Jake also replied a few
minutes prior to your message.

> PS. incremental diff in a single patch is harder to apply, but easier to
> review, comment both in a single reply == great idea

I'm interpreting this as a positive comment :) I got mixed feedback
about posting diffs in reply to patches, it seems to confuse b4 when
applying.