linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next v3 1/2] hinic: add generating mailbox random index support

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <5f8a2fd5-292b-db53-3cbd-def7c1f22725@huawei.com>
Date:   Tue, 4 Aug 2020 09:57:56 +0800
From:   "luobin (L)" <luobin9@...wei.com>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
CC:     <davem@...emloft.net>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <luoxianjun@...wei.com>,
        <yin.yinshi@...wei.com>, <cloud.wangxiaoyun@...wei.com>,
        <chiqijun@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v3 1/2] hinic: add generating mailbox random
 index support

On 2020/8/4 6:05, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Sat, 1 Aug 2020 10:49:34 +0800 Luo bin wrote:
>> add support to generate mailbox random id of VF to ensure that
>> mailbox messages PF received are from the correct VF.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Luo bin <luobin9@...wei.com>
>> ---
>> V2~V3 fix review opinions pointed out by Jakub
> 
> In the future please specify what was changed, e.g.:
> 
>  - use get_random_u32()
>  - remove unnecessary parenthesis
> 
> etc.
> 
Okay, I'll pay attention to that next time.
>> +int hinic_vf_mbox_random_id_init(struct hinic_hwdev *hwdev)
>> +{
>> +	u8 vf_in_pf;
>> +	int err = 0;
>> +
>> +	if (HINIC_IS_VF(hwdev->hwif))
>> +		return 0;
>> +
>> +	for (vf_in_pf = 1; vf_in_pf <= hwdev->nic_cap.max_vf; vf_in_pf++) {
>> +		err = set_vf_mbox_random_id(hwdev, hinic_glb_pf_vf_offset
>> +					    (hwdev->hwif) + vf_in_pf);
> 
> I'm sorry but you must put the call to hinic_glb_pf_vf_offset() on a
> separate line. Perhaps take this call out of the for loop entirely?
> 
> The way it's written with the parenthesis on the next line is hard to
> read.
Will fix. Thanks. Taking it out of the loop is a better way to avoid a long line length.
> 
>> +		if (err)
>> +			break;
>> +	}
> .
>