From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [IPv6:2a01:7e0:0:424::9]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9B1041FF164 for ; Fri, 4 Jul 2025 09:55:15 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 72CF431C16; Fri, 4 Jul 2025 09:55:54 +0200 (CEST) Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2025 09:55:51 +0200 From: Wolfgang Bumiller To: Stefan Hanreich Message-ID: References: <20250702145101.894299-1-g.goller@proxmox.com> <20250702145101.894299-2-g.goller@proxmox.com> <62235b71-de6f-40a0-bd0b-00ed94b0b73c@proxmox.com> <9b277851-2e68-4945-9c43-e2701822921d@proxmox.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <9b277851-2e68-4945-9c43-e2701822921d@proxmox.com> X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.080 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% DMARC_MISSING 0.1 Missing DMARC policy KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED 0.218 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH proxmox v4 1/5] network-types: initial commit X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: Proxmox VE development discussion Cc: Proxmox VE development discussion Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com Sender: "pve-devel" On Thu, Jul 03, 2025 at 03:48:43PM +0200, Stefan Hanreich wrote: > > > On 7/3/25 15:46, Stefan Hanreich wrote: > > On 7/3/25 15:11, Wolfgang Bumiller wrote: > >>> + /// checks whether this CIDR contains an IPv4 address. > >>> + pub fn contains_address(&self, other: &Ipv4Addr) -> bool { > >>> + let bits = u32::from_be_bytes(self.addr.octets()); > >>> + let other_bits = u32::from_be_bytes(other.octets()); > >>> + > >>> + let shift_amount: u32 = IPV4_LENGTH.saturating_sub(self.mask).into(); > >>> + > >>> + bits.checked_shr(shift_amount).unwrap_or(0) > >>> + == other_bits.checked_shr(shift_amount).unwrap_or(0) > >> > >> ^ Could IMO just use `>>` since `IPV4_LENGTH.saturating_sub(self.mask)` > >> is always <= the number of bits or an u32. > > > > shift_amount can be 32 and >> needs the shift amount to be strictly > > smaller than the width of the integer, see [1]. > > > > We could short-circuit when mask == width instead? > > mask == 0, ofc Or mask the mask with `& 31` ;-) But it doesn't really matter, the code is fine as it is. _______________________________________________ pve-devel mailing list pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel