Linux Ethernet Bridging - Jun 2014 - [Bridge] [PATCH net-next] bridge: Fix incorrect judgment of promisc

br_manage_promisc() incorrectly expects br_auto_port() to return only 0
or 1, while it actually returns flags, i.e., a subset of BR_AUTO_MASK.

Signed-off-by: Toshiaki Makita <makita.toshiaki at lab.ntt.co.jp>
---
 net/bridge/br_if.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/net/bridge/br_if.c b/net/bridge/br_if.c
index a08d2b8..6a07a40 100644
--- a/net/bridge/br_if.c
+++ b/net/bridge/br_if.c
@@ -153,7 +153,7 @@ void br_manage_promisc(struct net_bridge *br)
 			 * This lets us disable promiscuous mode and write
 			 * this config to hw.
 			 */
-			if (br->auto_cnt <= br_auto_port(p))
+			if (br->auto_cnt <= !!br_auto_port(p))
 				br_port_clear_promisc(p);
 			else
 				br_port_set_promisc(p);
-- 
1.8.1.2

From: Toshiaki Makita
> br_manage_promisc() incorrectly expects br_auto_port() to return only 0
> or 1, while it actually returns flags, i.e., a subset of BR_AUTO_MASK.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Toshiaki Makita <makita.toshiaki@lab.ntt.co.jp>
> ---
>  net/bridge/br_if.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/net/bridge/br_if.c b/net/bridge/br_if.c
> index a08d2b8..6a07a40 100644
> --- a/net/bridge/br_if.c
> +++ b/net/bridge/br_if.c
> @@ -153,7 +153,7 @@ void br_manage_promisc(struct net_bridge *br)
>  			 * This lets us disable promiscuous mode and write
>  			 * this config to hw.
>  			 */
> -			if (br->auto_cnt <= br_auto_port(p))
> +			if (br->auto_cnt <= !!br_auto_port(p))
>  				br_port_clear_promisc(p);
>  			else
>  				br_port_set_promisc(p);
Why not the less confusing:
			if (br->auto_cnt || br_auto_port(p))
and reverse the then/else lines?

	David

From: Toshiaki Makita
> br_manage_promisc() incorrectly expects br_auto_port() to return only 0
> or 1, while it actually returns flags, i.e., a subset of BR_AUTO_MASK.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Toshiaki Makita <makita.toshiaki at lab.ntt.co.jp>
> ---
>  net/bridge/br_if.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/net/bridge/br_if.c b/net/bridge/br_if.c
> index a08d2b8..6a07a40 100644
> --- a/net/bridge/br_if.c
> +++ b/net/bridge/br_if.c
> @@ -153,7 +153,7 @@ void br_manage_promisc(struct net_bridge *br)
>  			 * This lets us disable promiscuous mode and write
>  			 * this config to hw.
>  			 */
> -			if (br->auto_cnt <= br_auto_port(p))
> +			if (br->auto_cnt <= !!br_auto_port(p))
>  				br_port_clear_promisc(p);
>  			else
>  				br_port_set_promisc(p);
Why not the less confusing:
			if (br->auto_cnt || br_auto_port(p))
and reverse the then/else lines?

	David

(2014/06/05 20:03), David Laight wrote:
> From: Toshiaki Makita
>> br_manage_promisc() incorrectly expects br_auto_port() to return only 0
>> or 1, while it actually returns flags, i.e., a subset of BR_AUTO_MASK.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Toshiaki Makita <makita.toshiaki at lab.ntt.co.jp>
>> ---
>>  net/bridge/br_if.c | 2 +-
>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/net/bridge/br_if.c b/net/bridge/br_if.c
>> index a08d2b8..6a07a40 100644
>> --- a/net/bridge/br_if.c
>> +++ b/net/bridge/br_if.c
>> @@ -153,7 +153,7 @@ void br_manage_promisc(struct net_bridge *br)
>>  			 * This lets us disable promiscuous mode and write
>>  			 * this config to hw.
>>  			 */
>> -			if (br->auto_cnt <= br_auto_port(p))
>> +			if (br->auto_cnt <= !!br_auto_port(p))
>>  				br_port_clear_promisc(p);
>>  			else
>>  				br_port_set_promisc(p);
> 
> Why not the less confusing:
> 			if (br->auto_cnt || br_auto_port(p))
> and reverse the then/else lines?
I'm respecting the original style, but I'm not particular about this
style.
I'll make less confusing one, thanks :)

(Your suggested condition is not exactly the same as current one, even
if reversing if/else. v2 will be different than it. Anyway, thanks.)

Toshiaki Makita