linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next 01/14] etherdevice: Add eth_<foo>_addr CONFIG_HAVE_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED

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, 03 Mar 2015 11:56:41 -0800
From:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To:	Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Cc:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 01/14] etherdevice: Add eth_<foo>_addr
 CONFIG_HAVE_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS code

On Tue, 2015-03-03 at 11:41 -0800, Joe Perches wrote:

> Until such time as the linux crosstools compilers are updated,
> (they seem stuck on 4.6.3 from 3 years ago)
> https://www.kernel.org/pub/tools/crosstool/
> I think the series is a trivial, small improvement.
> 
> I believe that's the only "argument" I've made.
> 
> Your choice to apply it or not, but if the series
> isn't appropriate, likely the existence of both
> eth_zero_addr and eth_broadcast_addr is suspect too.
> 

Please not that my objection was on patch 1/14 itself :

Using if defined(CONFIG_HAVE_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS) in a slow path,
instead of leaving the existing memset() in place.

If people likes eth_broadcast_addr(), I have nothing against this.

Commit 6d57e9078e880a3dd232d579f42ac437a8f1ef7b
("etherdevice: introduce help function eth_zero_addr()")
was fine.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/