netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 7/7] sfc: add debugfs node for filter table contents

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, 12 Dec 2023 13:58:56 +0000
From: Edward Cree <ecree.xilinx@...il.com>
To: Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>, edward.cree@....com
Cc: linux-net-drivers@....com, davem@...emloft.net, kuba@...nel.org,
 pabeni@...hat.com, edumazet@...gle.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
 habetsm.xilinx@...il.com, Jonathan Cooper <jonathan.s.cooper@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 7/7] sfc: add debugfs node for filter table
 contents

On 11/12/2023 19:17, Simon Horman wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 11, 2023 at 05:18:32PM +0000, edward.cree@....com wrote:
>> @@ -63,6 +67,45 @@ void efx_fini_debugfs_nic(struct efx_nic *efx);
>>  int efx_init_debugfs(void);
>>  void efx_fini_debugfs(void);
>>  
>> +void efx_debugfs_print_filter(char *s, size_t l, struct efx_filter_spec *spec);
>> +
>> +/* Generate operations for a debugfs node with a custom reader function.
>> + * The reader should have signature int (*)(struct seq_file *s, void *data)
>> + * where data is the pointer passed to EFX_DEBUGFS_CREATE_RAW.
>> + */
>> +#define EFX_DEBUGFS_RAW_PARAMETER(_reader)				       \
>> +									       \
>> +static int efx_debugfs_##_reader##_read(struct seq_file *s, void *d)	       \
>> +{									       \
>> +	return _reader(s, s->private);					       \
>> +}									       \
>> +									       \
>> +static int efx_debugfs_##_reader##_open(struct inode *inode, struct file *f)   \
>> +{									       \
>> +	return single_open(f, efx_debugfs_##_reader##_read, inode->i_private); \
>> +}									       \
> 
> Hi Edward,
> 
> I think that probably the above should be static inline.

Yep, in fact there are instances of this from patch 2 onwards (most
 of those aren't even static).  Clearly I hadn't had enough sleep
 the day I wrote this :/
Will fix in v2, along with the build break on #6.
Thanks for reviewing.

-ed