linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next 3/4] net: Call into DSA netdevice

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: <898882da-780e-babb-15d0-01d3bba07f67@gmail.com>
Date:   Sun, 19 Jul 2020 09:08:00 -0700
From:   Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
To:     Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
Cc:     Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...il.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Jiri Pirko <jiri@...lanox.com>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Taehee Yoo <ap420073@...il.com>,
        Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
        Maxim Mikityanskiy <maximmi@...lanox.com>,
        Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>,
        Michal Kubecek <mkubecek@...e.cz>,
        open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 3/4] net: Call into DSA netdevice_ops wrappers



On 7/19/2020 9:04 AM, Andrew Lunn wrote:
>> If we have the core network stack reference DSA as a module then we
>> force DSA to be either built-in or not, which is not very practical,
>> people would still want a modular choice to be possible. The static
>> inline only wraps indirect function pointer calls using definitions
>> available at build time and actual function pointer substitution at run
>> time, so we avoid that problem entirely that way.
> 
> Hi Florian
> 
> The jumping through the pointer avoids the inbuilt vs module problems.
> 
> The helpers themselves could be in a net/core/*.c file, rather than
> static inline in a header. Is it worth adding a net/core/dsa.c for
> code which must always be built in? At the moment, probably not.  But
> if we have more such redirect, maybe it would be?
I would continue to put what is DSA specific in net/dsa.h an not
introduce new files within net/core/ that we could easily miss while
updating DSA or we would need to update the MAINTAINERS file for etc.
-- 
Florian