lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Oct]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 net-next 1/2] net: dsa: lan9303: Add port_fast_age and port_fdb_dump methods
From
Date


Den 19. okt. 2017 17:42, skrev Egil Hjelmeland:
> On 19. okt. 2017 17:15, David Laight wrote:
>> From: Andrew Lunn
>>> Sent: 19 October 2017 15:15
>>>>> +/* Clear learned (non-static) entry on given port */
>>>>> +static void alr_loop_cb_del_port_learned(struct lan9303 *chip, u32
>>>>> dat0,
>>>>> +                     u32 dat1, int portmap, void *ctx)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> +    int *port = ctx;
>>>>
>>>> You can get the value directly to make the line below more readable:
>>>>
>>>>      int port = *(int *)ctx;
>>>
>>> You have to be a bit careful with this. You often see people
>>> submitting patches taking away casts for void * pointers.
>>> If they do that here, it should at least not compile...
>>>
>>> So maybe do it in two steps?
>>>
>>>     int * pport = ctx;
>>>     int port = *pport;
>>
>> IMHO it is best to define a struct for the 'ctx and then do:
>>     ..., void *v_ctx)
>> {
>>     foo_ctx *ctx = v_ctx;
>>     int port = ctx->port;
>>
>> That stops anyone having to double-check that the *(int *)
>> is operating on a pointer to an integer of the correct size.
>>
>
> Does casting to a struct pointer require less manual double-check than
> to a int-pointer? In neither cases the compiler can protect us, IFAIK.
> But on the other hand, a the text "foo_ctx" can searched in the editor.
> So in that respect it can somewhat aid to the double-checking.
>
> So I can do that.
>
>

I understand now that the caller side (lan9303_port_fast_age) is
vulnerable. Say somebody has the idea to change the "port" param
of .port_fast_age from int to u8, then my code is a trap.

Thanks for the education.

Egil


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-10-22 17:27    [W:0.098 / U:0.048 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site