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  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:	Fri, 01 Oct 2010 00:55:52 +0200
From:	Johannes Berg <>
To:	Julian Calaby <>
Subject: Re: [RFC 1/2] genetlink: introduce pre_doit/post_doit hooks

On Fri, 2010-10-01 at 08:51 +1000, Julian Calaby wrote:

> > Come to think of it -- I could get away with a single pointer, since, if
> > both are assigned,
> >
> > user_ptr[0] == wiphy_to_rdev(((netdev *)user_ptr[1])->ieee80211_ptr->wiphy)
> >
> > but that's a lot of pointy things, and some functions only have the rdev
> > so it gets more complex. I think allowing two private pointers is a
> > decent compromise.
> Come to think of it -- if someone wanted to have a massive structure
> with 10 pointers and a set of random data structures, then they could
> easily create their priv struct and assign it to user_ptr[0], hence
> rendering my argument null and void.

Oh, well, I thought your argument was that it was arbitrary and not
really necessary :-)

Also, this rather cheap, it just needs a bit more stack space in a place
that isn't typically deeply nested. So if some protocol came around and
needed three pointers, I'd probably advocate just bumping it to three.
At some point I might draw a line (10 is probably too much).

But you're right, of course, they can just use the first one and put
something dynamically allocated into that, if really needed.


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists