netdev - Re: [PATCH RFC] fix problems with NETIF_F

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:	Thu, 25 Mar 2010 20:35:20 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	fujita.tomonori@....ntt.co.jp
Cc:	hancockrwd@...il.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org,
	bzolnier@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] fix problems with NETIF_F_HIGHDMA in networking
 drivers v2

From: FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@....ntt.co.jp>
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2010 12:33:12 +0900

> On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 19:03:37 -0600
> Robert Hancock <hancockrwd@...il.com> wrote:
> 
>> This seems like it could be a reasonable approach. The only thing is
>> that in this code you're returning 1 if the parent device has no DMA
>> mask set. Wouldn't it make more sense to return 0 in this case? I'm
>> assuming that in that situation it's a virtual device not backed by
>> any hardware and there should be no DMA mask restriction...
> 
> I chose the safer option because I don't know enough how net_device
> structure is used. If returning zero in such case is always safe, it's
> fine by me. any example of such virtual device driver?

Like Fujita I'd rather play it safe here.

Even for virtual devices, DMA information up to the root bus
ought to be sane.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html