Commit 06a96b33 authored by roel kluin's avatar roel kluin Committed by David S. Miller

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

Looking at commit ebc3f64b 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: default avatarRoel Kluin <roel.kluin@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: default avatarDavid S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
parent f14d42f3
...@@ -1363,7 +1363,7 @@ static int x25_ioctl(struct socket *sock, unsigned int cmd, unsigned long arg) ...@@ -1363,7 +1363,7 @@ static int x25_ioctl(struct socket *sock, unsigned int cmd, unsigned long arg)
facilities.throughput > 0xDD) facilities.throughput > 0xDD)
break; break;
if (facilities.reverse && if (facilities.reverse &&
(facilities.reverse | 0x81)!= 0x81) (facilities.reverse & 0x81) != 0x81)
break; break;
x25->facilities = facilities; x25->facilities = facilities;
rc = 0; rc = 0;
......
Markdown is supported
0%
or
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment