netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] sctp: Remove commented out code

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: <6F08E5F2-761F-4593-9FEB-173ECF18CC71@linux.dev>
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2025 12:17:54 +0100
From: Thorsten Blum <thorsten.blum@...ux.dev>
To: Mateusz Polchlopek <mateusz.polchlopek@...el.com>
Cc: Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <marcelo.leitner@...il.com>,
 Xin Long <lucien.xin@...il.com>,
 "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
 Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
 Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
 Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
 Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>,
 linux-sctp@...r.kernel.org,
 netdev@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] sctp: Remove commented out code

On 11. Feb 2025, at 11:49, Mateusz Polchlopek wrote:
> On 2/11/2025 11:20 AM, Thorsten Blum wrote:
>> Remove commented out code.
>> Signed-off-by: Thorsten Blum <thorsten.blum@...ux.dev>
>> ---
>>  include/linux/sctp.h | 1 -
>>  1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
>> diff --git a/include/linux/sctp.h b/include/linux/sctp.h
>> index 836a7e200f39..812011d8b67e 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/sctp.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/sctp.h
>> @@ -222,7 +222,6 @@ struct sctp_datahdr {
>>   __be16 stream;
>>   __be16 ssn;
>>   __u32 ppid;
>> - /* __u8  payload[]; */
>>  };
>>    struct sctp_data_chunk {
> 
> Hi Thorsten
> 
> I don't think we want to remove that piece of code, please refer
> to the discussion under the link:
> 
> https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/cover.1681917361.git.lucien.xin@gmail.com/

Hm, the commit message (dbda0fba7a14) says payload was deleted because
"the member is not even used anywhere," but it was just commented out.
In the cover letter it then explains that "deleted" actually means
"commented out."

However, I can't follow the reasoning in the cover letter either:

"Note that instead of completely deleting it, we just leave it as a
comment in the struct, signalling to the reader that we do expect
such variable parameters over there, as Marcelo suggested."

Where do I find Marcelo's suggestion and the "variable parameters over
there?"

Thanks,
Thorsten