netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 00/11] skb_put_zero() used to optimize code

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, 14 Jun 2017 22:11:54 +0200
From:   Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
To:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:     cugyly@....com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        Linyu.Yuan@...atel-sbell.com.cn
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 00/11] skb_put_zero() used to optimize code

On Wed, 2017-06-14 at 15:38 -0400, David Miller wrote:

> What do you think about Stephen Hemminger's feedback to make
> skb_put_zero() return "void *".  It will avoid a lot of casts and
> make the conversions look nicer.

I think it's a good idea. I can send a patch, and remove some casts
where they exist - I guess we could also do it even for skb_put()
eventually.

> I'll also defer on this patch series until we have the spatch thing
> which can catch all of them.

I think I have something that covers most cases, will send out an RFC
in a minute (since I'm not sure I was able to build it all yet).

Note that some of the cases like in ipv6/ndisc.c certainly can't be
done automatically, they look correct but are more complicated because
there's not just a single big memset(), but they're doing it piece by
piece (fill some bytes, clear some others, etc.) Might be worth
checking which aren't covered by the spatch.

johannes