On Sat, Sep 03, 2005 at 09:54:25AM -0700, Jouni Malinen wrote: > On Sat, Sep 03, 2005 at 10:43:15AM +0200, Harald Welte wrote: > > > htonll() is nothing else than cpu_to_be64(), so we'd rather call the > > latter. > > Actually, the htonll() implementation does not seem to be doing what > cpu_to_be64() is doing.. However, I would assume this is a bug in > htonll() and this change to use cpu_to_be64() is fixing that.
ACK. > Can this bug cause any major problems in the current implementation? the "current implementation" was only merged after 2.6.13 is released, so I doubt anyone but the netfilter developers is using it yet. > I would assume that the first index should have had '-i' added to it, if > the purpose is to swap byte order.. The code here is leaving some > arbitrary data in 7 bytes of the 64-bit variable and setting > (u8*)&out[7] = (u8*)&in[7] in somewhat inefficient way ;-). In addition, > this looks more like swap-8-bytes-unconditionally than doing this based > on host byte order.. yes, yes, yes. Somehow this ancient buggy implementation slipped into mainline. I know I had fixed this before. So please let's all forget about this embarrassing htonll() and move on. -- - Harald Welte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://netfilter.org/ ============================================================================ "Fragmentation is like classful addressing -- an interesting early architectural error that shows how much experimentation was going on while IP was being designed." -- Paul Vixie
pgpZliKCIUmq8.pgp
Description: PGP signature
