linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next] sfc: use flow_rule_no_unsupp_control

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, 16 Apr 2024 14:57:29 +0100
From: Edward Cree <ecree.xilinx@...il.com>
To: Asbjørn Sloth Tønnesen <ast@...erby.net>,
 netdev@...r.kernel.org
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
 Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
 Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Martin Habets <habetsm.xilinx@...il.com>,
 linux-net-drivers@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] sfc: use flow_rule_no_unsupp_control_flags()

On 16/04/2024 14:44, Asbjørn Sloth Tønnesen wrote:
> Adopt nfp-style *_FLOWER_SUPPORTED_CTLFLAGS define.
> 
> Change the check for unsupported control flags, to use the new helper
> flow_rule_is_supp_control_flags().
> 
> Since the helper was based on sfc, then nothing really changes.
> 
> Compile-tested, and compiled objects are identical.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Asbjørn Sloth Tønnesen <ast@...erby.net>

Subject line doesn't match the patch (I guess because the helper
 got renamed).

> ---
>  drivers/net/ethernet/sfc/tc.c | 10 ++++++----
>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/sfc/tc.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/sfc/tc.c
> index 82e8891a619a..5f73f1dea524 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/sfc/tc.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/sfc/tc.c
> @@ -21,6 +21,10 @@
>  #include "ef100_rep.h"
>  #include "efx.h"
>  
> +#define SFC_FLOWER_SUPPORTED_CTLFLAGS \
> +	(FLOW_DIS_IS_FRAGMENT | \
> +	 FLOW_DIS_FIRST_FRAG)

I'd rather keep the flags in-line, next to where they're actually
 used.  I.e. we have
    if (flags & FRAGMENT)
        blah;
    if (flags & FIRST_FRAG)
        foo;
    if (!blah_supported(FRAGMENT | FIRST_FRAG))
        return -EEK;
 and it's very clear that anyone changing one of those parts also
 needs to change the other.  Whereas with your #define it's not
 immediately obvious to someone reading the code where that set
 of supported flags comes from conceptually.

-ed