| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 22:52:02 +0100 From: Krzysztof Halasa <khc@...waw.pl> To: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...ux-foundation.org> Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: netdev->priv and netdev_priv(dev) Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...ux-foundation.org> writes: > Those drivers were making a incorrect assumption and should be fixed. > The in-tree drivers were fixed when this was done. If you have an out > of tree driver, then too bad for you. I have few out-of-tree drivers (IOW not yet merged) but they aren't affected. These in the tree are (actually I was contacted by driver's author and am considering the best way to fix this). > The additional overhead of the address calculation would slow down the > well behaved drivers. There is always dev->priv. > There was discussion of alternative layouts of > the network device allocation or limiting the number of subqueue's so > that netdev_priv could be a simple addition again, but nothing came of > it. This isn't about an addition, netdev_priv() is still there. The semantics silently changed, that's it. I'm fine with its removal, is it ok? The trivial "return dev->priv" isn't worth it anyway. -- Krzysztof Halasa -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists