netdev - Re: ping -I eth1 ....

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:	Fri, 05 Nov 2010 16:06:54 +0100
From:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To:	Joakim Tjernlund <joakim.tjernlund@...nsmode.se>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, Thomas Graf <tgraf@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: ping -I eth1 ....

Le vendredi 05 novembre 2010 à 15:57 +0100, Joakim Tjernlund a écrit :
> Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> wrote on 2010/11/05 15:34:25:
> t be a reason why in many places we only test (dev->flags &
> > IFF_UP), and _never_ netif_oper_up() (only in dev_get_flags() to export
> > it at userspace)
> 
> Hopefully most of that is legacy or just plain wrong? Unless
> someone can say why only test IFF_UP one should consider changing them.
> 

Most of the places are hot path.

You dont want to replace one test by four tests.

_This_ would be wrong :)

--
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