netdev - RE: [PATCH 1/2] Ethtool: Add EEE support

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:	Wed, 6 Jun 2012 16:27:05 +0000
From:	"Yuval Mintz" <yuvalmin@...adcom.com>
To:	"Ben Hutchings" <bhutchings@...arflare.com>
cc:	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Eilon Greenstein" <eilong@...adcom.com>,
	"peppe.cavallaro@...com" <peppe.cavallaro@...com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 1/2] Ethtool: Add EEE support

Hi Ben,

I stand corrected; I'll supply a new version shortly. 

I've got 2 questions  though:

> For now, use int for booleans.  At some point I would like to see a
> thorough cleanup of ethtool to use bool where appropriate - but that's
> independent of this

I've noticed that the 'do_generic_set' function assumes all fields are ints.
Is this a convention we should stick to (using  __u32 in the ethtool structs)?

I'm asking because I'm "wasting" fields in the ethtool_eee struct as I use
__u32 for boolean fields, simply because what seems to be the conventional
method won't work with smaller fields (corrupts the following fields).

The seconds question - is there a dependency between your acceptance of
this patch series and Dave's acceptance of the kernel's ethtool modification?
I'm asking because changes in the ethtool header there should be applied in
this patch series as well (in ethtool-copy.h).

Thanks,
Yuval