netdev - Fwd: [PATCH net-next v6 3/3] act_vlan: VLAN action rewrite to use RCU lock/unlock and update

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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 8 Nov 2017 06:43:12 -0500
From:   Manish Kurup <kurup.manish@...il.com>
To:     Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Fwd: [PATCH net-next v6 3/3] act_vlan: VLAN action rewrite to use RCU
 lock/unlock and update

Hi Dave,

On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 7:07 PM, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote:
>
> From: Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@...il.com>
> Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2017 08:54:20 -0800
>
> > Are we really going to be so strict about the reverse xmas-tree that
> > we won't allow for assignment w/ variable declaration because the
> > dependency order won't fit into that format?
>
> Yes.
>
> > Last I knew this kind of setup was an exception to the reverse
> > xmas-tree layout requirement because in this case 'p' relies on 'v' so
> > we can't reorder these without having to kick the assignment of 'p'
> > off onto a line by itself.
>
> Please just declare the variable naked without the assignment and do
> the assignment down in the code.

I have a changeset that I had made to incorporate the reverse xmas
tree, doing the very thing you talk about, above.
The only reason I didnt not send it out because it made more than
minimal changes, especially how the 'opt' struct is defined.

I will make the changes and send the review around once more.

Thanks,