Skip to contentSkip to conversation

x25: bit and/or confusion in x25_ioctl()?

PATCH In review Roel Kluin 2 participants 2 messages Oct 7, 2009 – Oct 13, 2009

Subsystems (3)
Networking Network drivers X.25 stack
lore
Share & tools
lore

Roel Kluin

author
#0 lore raw

PATCH 1/1 x25: bit and/or confusion in x25_ioctl()?

Looking at commit ebc3f64b864f it appears that this was intended and not the original, equivalent to `if (facilities.reverse & ~0x81)'.

In x25_parse_facilities() that patch changed how facilities->reverse was set. No other bits were set than 0x80 and/or 0x01.

Signed-off-by Roel Kluin <[email protected]>

---
This is correct isn't it?

net/x25/af_x25.c +1 -1
index 7fa9c7a..ca4dc28 100644
@@ -1363,7 +1363,7 @@ static int x25_ioctl(struct socket *sock, unsigned int cmd, unsigned long arg)
 			    facilities.throughput > 0xDD)
 				break;
 			if (facilities.reverse &&
-				(facilities.reverse | 0x81)!= 0x81)
+				(facilities.reverse & 0x81) != 0x81)
 				break;
 			x25->facilities = facilities;
 			rc = 0;
maintainer
#1 lore raw

From: Roel Kluin <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, 07 Oct 2009 12:59:42 +0200

Quoted 7 lines

Looking at commit ebc3f64b864f it appears that this was intended and not the original, equivalent to `if (facilities.reverse & ~0x81)'.

In x25_parse_facilities() that patch changed how facilities->reverse was set. No other bits were set than 0x80 and/or 0x01.

Signed-off-by Roel Kluin <[email protected]>

Looks good to me, applied to net-next-2.6