From: Johannes Berg <johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Mon, 07 May 2012 16:12:41 +0200 > On Mon, 2012-05-07 at 15:53 +0200, Eric Dumazet wrote: >> On Mon, 2012-05-07 at 15:39 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote: >> > From: Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@xxxxxxxxx> >> > >> > Neither compare_ether_addr() nor compare_ether_addr_64bits() >> > (as it can fall back to the former) have comparison semantics >> > like memcmp() where the sign of the return value indicates sort >> > order. We had a bug in the wireless code due to a blind memcmp >> > replacement because of this. >> > >> > A cursory look suggests that the wireless bug was the only one >> > due to this semantic difference. >> > >> > Signed-off-by: Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@xxxxxxxxx> >> > --- >> > include/linux/etherdevice.h | 11 ++++++----- >> > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) >> >> The right way to avoid this kind of problems is to change these >> functions to return a bool > > Well, I guess so, but that'd be a weird thing for a compare_ function... > should probably be named equal_... then, but I'm not really able to do > such a huge change on the first day after my vacation :-) It's true the name could be improved, but changing the name is quite a large undertaking even with automated scripts. Even the bool change is slightly painful, since all of the explicit tests against integers (%99.999 of these are in wireless BTW :-) would need to be adjusted. For now, I'll just apply Johannes's comment fix. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html