linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next 03/16] net: dsa: use ports list in dsa_to

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Sun, 20 Oct 2019 19:38:34 -0700
From:   Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
To:     Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...il.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 03/16] net: dsa: use ports list in dsa_to_port



On 10/19/2019 8:19 PM, Vivien Didelot wrote:
> Use the new ports list instead of accessing the dsa_switch array
> of ports in the dsa_to_port helper.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...il.com>
> ---
>  include/net/dsa.h | 9 ++++++++-
>  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/include/net/dsa.h b/include/net/dsa.h
> index 6ff6dfcdc61d..938de9518c61 100644
> --- a/include/net/dsa.h
> +++ b/include/net/dsa.h
> @@ -285,7 +285,14 @@ struct dsa_switch {
>  
>  static inline struct dsa_port *dsa_to_port(struct dsa_switch *ds, int p)
>  {
> -	return &ds->ports[p];
> +	struct dsa_switch_tree *dst = ds->dst;
> +	struct dsa_port *dp;

I would initialize this to NULL and always return dp

> +
> +	list_for_each_entry(dp, &dst->ports, list)
> +		if (dp->ds == ds && dp->index == p)
> +			return dp;

and do a break here, but this is strictly identical to your code, so it
boils down to a matter of preference.

Do you possibly need to use list_for_ech_entry_safe() here, especially
for the code paths that deal with the unregistering of a switch/switch
fabric? That also raises the question of locking as well, which can be
punted on the caller if that is appropriate.

Other than that:

Reviewed-by: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
-- 
Florian