netdev - Re: [net-next 01/13] i40e: use ether_addr_equal

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 05 Mar 2014 20:35:59 -0800
From:	Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:	Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>
Cc:	davem@...emloft.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org, gospo@...hat.com,
	sassmann@...hat.com,
	Kavindya Deegala <kavindya.s.deegala@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [net-next 01/13] i40e: use ether_addr_equal_64bits

On Wed, 2014-03-05 at 20:21 -0800, Jeff Kirsher wrote:
> From: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
> 
> All ether_addr_equal tests in i40e can use the
> slightly more efficient ether_addr_equal_64bits.
> 
> All addresses passed to the various functions that
> use ether_addr_equal are using structs that have 2
> or more bytes of additional data after the mac addr
> being tested.

Hey Jeff.  Hi Kavindya.

I don't know if these are really that important to convert.

I did these when I looked for an example to convert and
I thought "hey, 40 gig's fast, I should start there..."

Recently, I've come to think that ether_addr_equal should
be used almost exclusively and ether_addr_equal_64bits
should only be used on performance sensitive or fast-path
code.

Are any of these on anything like a fast path or are
performance sensitive?

If not, maybe this patch should get tossed.

> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/i40e/i40e_main.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/i40e/i40e_main.c
[]
> @@ -997,7 +997,7 @@ static struct i40e_mac_filter *i40e_find_filter(struct i40e_vsi *vsi,
>  		return NULL;
>  
>  	list_for_each_entry(f, &vsi->mac_filter_list, list) {
> -		if ((ether_addr_equal(macaddr, f->macaddr)) &&
> +		if (ether_addr_equal_64bits(macaddr, f->macaddr) &&
>  		    (vlan == f->vlan)    &&
>  		    (!is_vf || f->is_vf) &&
>  		    (!is_netdev || f->is_netdev))
> @@ -1025,7 +1025,7 @@ struct i40e_mac_filter *i40e_find_mac(struct i40e_vsi *vsi, u8 *macaddr,
>  		return NULL;
>  
>  	list_for_each_entry(f, &vsi->mac_filter_list, list) {
> -		if ((ether_addr_equal(macaddr, f->macaddr)) &&
> +		if (ether_addr_equal_64bits(macaddr, f->macaddr) &&
>  		    (!is_vf || f->is_vf) &&
>  		    (!is_netdev || f->is_netdev))
>  			return f;

Well, maybe these 2.

> @@ -1214,7 +1214,7 @@ static int i40e_set_mac(struct net_device *netdev, void *p)
>  
>  	netdev_info(netdev, "set mac address=%pM\n", addr->sa_data);
>  
> -	if (ether_addr_equal(netdev->dev_addr, addr->sa_data))
> +	if (ether_addr_equal_64bits(netdev->dev_addr, addr->sa_data))
>  		return 0;
>  
>  	if (test_bit(__I40E_DOWN, &vsi->back->state) ||

probably not.

> @@ -1417,21 +1417,24 @@ static void i40e_set_rx_mode(struct net_device *netdev)
>  
>  		if (is_multicast_ether_addr(f->macaddr)) {
>  			netdev_for_each_mc_addr(mca, netdev) {
> -				if (ether_addr_equal(mca->addr, f->macaddr)) {
> +				if (ether_addr_equal_64bits(mca->addr,
> +							    f->macaddr)) {
>  					found = true;
>  					break;
>  				}
>  			}
>  		} else {
>  			netdev_for_each_uc_addr(uca, netdev) {
> -				if (ether_addr_equal(uca->addr, f->macaddr)) {
> +				if (ether_addr_equal_64bits(uca->addr,
> +							    f->macaddr)) {
>  					found = true;
>  					break;
>  				}
>  			}
>  
>  			for_each_dev_addr(netdev, ha) {
> -				if (ether_addr_equal(ha->addr, f->macaddr)) {
> +				if (ether_addr_equal_64bits(ha->addr,
> +							    f->macaddr)) {
>  					found = true;
>  					break;
>  				}

probably not.

> @@ -1905,7 +1908,8 @@ int i40e_vsi_kill_vlan(struct i40e_vsi *vsi, s16 vid)
>  	list_for_each_entry(f, &vsi->mac_filter_list, list) {
>  		if (is_netdev) {
>  			if (f->vlan &&
> -			    ether_addr_equal(netdev->dev_addr, f->macaddr))
> +			    ether_addr_equal_64bits(netdev->dev_addr,
> +						    f->macaddr))
>  				filter_count++;
>  		}

Dunno.

--
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