linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next 2/8] net: dsa: directly fetch switch in lan9303

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]

Message-ID: <e1fcff41-6ee7-e125-c7eb-98f6ba00a62d@gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 29 Sep 2017 12:02:01 -0700
From:   Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
To:     Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...oirfairelinux.com>,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel@...oirfairelinux.com,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 2/8] net: dsa: directly fetch switch in
 lan9303_rcv

On 09/29/2017 11:36 AM, Vivien Didelot wrote:
> In a single-chip switch fabric, there is no need to fetch the dsa_switch
> structure from the tree, directly use the CPU port's "ds" member.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...oirfairelinux.com>
> ---
>  net/dsa/tag_lan9303.c | 5 ++---
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/net/dsa/tag_lan9303.c b/net/dsa/tag_lan9303.c
> index 0b9826105e42..f0b51acf36ac 100644
> --- a/net/dsa/tag_lan9303.c
> +++ b/net/dsa/tag_lan9303.c
> @@ -72,11 +72,10 @@ static struct sk_buff *lan9303_rcv(struct sk_buff *skb, struct net_device *dev,
>  {
>  	u16 *lan9303_tag;
>  	struct dsa_switch_tree *dst = dev->dsa_ptr;
> -	struct dsa_switch *ds;
> +	struct dsa_port *cpu_dp = dst->cpu_dp;
> +	struct dsa_switch *ds = cpu_dp->ds;
>  	unsigned int source_port;
>  
> -	ds = dst->ds[0];
> -
>  	if (unlikely(!ds)) {
>  		dev_warn_ratelimited(&dev->dev, "Dropping packet, due to missing DSA switch device\n");
>  		return NULL;

Similarly to the patch before, you can probably drop this test, I don't
actually see how we could trigger it.
-- 
Florian