netdev - Re: [PATCH/RESEND] drivers/net/ethernet: dev_alloc_skb to netdev_alloc

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]

Message-ID: <1327351619.8074.3.camel@joe2Laptop>
Date:	Mon, 23 Jan 2012 12:46:59 -0800
From:	Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:	"Pradeep A. Dalvi" <netdev@...deepdalvi.com>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH/RESEND] drivers/net/ethernet: dev_alloc_skb to
 netdev_alloc_skb

On Tue, 2012-01-24 at 02:11 +0530, Pradeep A. Dalvi wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 1:26 AM, Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, 2012-01-24 at 00:49 +0530, Pradeep A. Dalvi wrote:
> >> On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 12:10 AM, Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> wrote:
> >> > On Mon, 2012-01-23 at 23:58 +0530, Pradeep A. Dalvi wrote:
> >> >> Replaced deprecating dev_alloc_skb with netdev_alloc_skb in drivers/net/ethernet
> >> >>   - Removed extra skb->dev = dev after netdev_alloc_skb
> >> > []
> >> >> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/amd/lance.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/amd/lance.c
> >> > []
> >> >> @@ -871,13 +871,12 @@ lance_init_ring(struct net_device *dev, gfp_t gfp)
> >> >>               struct sk_buff *skb;
> >> >>               void *rx_buff;
> >> >>
> >> >> -             skb = alloc_skb(PKT_BUF_SZ, GFP_DMA | gfp);
> >> >> +             skb = netdev_alloc_skb(dev, PKT_BUF_SZ);
> >> >
> >> > This change seems suspect.
> >> Not really sure what made you suspect something in here. If you could
> >> help me understand possibly broken scenarios, would essentially be
> >> helpful. Thanks in advance!
> >
> > Where did the GFP_DMA go?
> 
> Aah! Is that really needed? Cause from my understanding, priority GFP
> flag __GFP_DMA is anyway negated in __alloc_skb, in a way from all
> sources i.e. netdev_alloc_skb or dev_alloc_skb or even alloc_skb. Am I
> missing something here?

It very well may be equivalent behavior.
I didn't look and didn't much care.

All I saw was an inequivalent transform with no change log
describing why the change was warranted.

cheers, Joe

--
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