netdev - Re: [patch net-next v2 02/10] net: sched: introduce tcf block infractructure

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:   Tue, 16 May 2017 14:23:26 +0200
From:   Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
To:     Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net,
        xiyou.wangcong@...il.com, dsa@...ulusnetworks.com,
        edumazet@...gle.com, stephen@...workplumber.org,
        daniel@...earbox.net, alexander.h.duyck@...el.com,
        simon.horman@...ronome.com, mlxsw@...lanox.com
Subject: Re: [patch net-next v2 02/10] net: sched: introduce tcf block
 infractructure

Tue, May 16, 2017 at 02:07:25PM CEST, jhs@...atatu.com wrote:
>
>Jiri,
>
>I am sorry i am tied up elsewhere but will respond in chunks.
>
>On 17-05-15 04:38 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>
>
>>  static inline void qdisc_cb_private_validate(const struct sk_buff *skb, int sz)
>>  {
>>  	struct qdisc_skb_cb *qcb;
>
>
>> +int tcf_block_get(struct tcf_block **p_block,
>> +		  struct tcf_proto __rcu **p_filter_chain)
>> +{
>> +	struct tcf_block *block = kzalloc(sizeof(*block), GFP_KERNEL);
>> +
>> +	if (!block)
>> +		return -ENOMEM;
>> +	block->p_filter_chain = p_filter_chain;
>> +	*p_block = block;
>> +	return 0;
>> +}
>
>tcf_block_get() sounds odd. tcf_block_create()?

I used get/put because I plan to allow sharing of block between qdiscs
in future. Then there will be a refcount.


>
>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(tcf_block_get);
>> +
>> +void tcf_block_put(struct tcf_block *block)
>> +{
>> +	if (!block)
>> +		return;
>> +	tcf_destroy_chain(block->p_filter_chain);
>> +	kfree(block);
>> +}
>
>tcf_destroy_block()?
>
>[..]
>
>> +	error = tcf_block_get(&flow->block, &flow->filter_list);
>> +	if (error) {
>> +		kfree(flow);
>> +		goto err_out;
>> +	}
>> +
>>  	flow->q = qdisc_create_dflt(sch->dev_queue, &pfifo_qdisc_ops, classid);
>>  	if (!flow->q)
>>  		flow->q = &noop_qdisc;
>> @@ -346,14 +353,13 @@ static void atm_tc_walk(struct Qdisc *sch, struct qdisc_walker *walker)
>>  	}
>>  }
>> 
>> -static struct tcf_proto __rcu **atm_tc_find_tcf(struct Qdisc *sch,
>> -						unsigned long cl)
>> +static struct tcf_block *atm_tc_tcf_block(struct Qdisc *sch, unsigned long cl)
>
>Any reason you removed the verb "find" from all these calls?
>eg above: better to have atm_tc_tcf_block_find()?

Yeah, I was thinking about it. The thing is, the callback does not do
any lookup so "find" is not accurate. Also without "find" this is
shorter so I decided for this naming variant.



>
>cheers,
>jamal