netdev - Re: [PATCH 1/4] xen-netfront: remove unused variable `extra'

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: <5147CFD2.8040803@oracle.com>
Date:	Tue, 19 Mar 2013 10:39:14 +0800
From:	annie li <annie.li@...cle.com>
To:	Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@...rix.com>
CC:	Wei Liu <wei.liu2@...rix.com>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	"xen-devel@...ts.xen.org" <xen-devel@...ts.xen.org>,
	"konrad.wilk@...cle.com" <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] xen-netfront: remove unused variable `extra'


On 2013-3-18 20:14, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-03-18 at 12:04 +0000, Wei Liu wrote:
>> On Mon, 2013-03-18 at 11:42 +0000, Ian Campbell wrote:
>>> On Mon, 2013-03-18 at 10:35 +0000, Wei Liu wrote:
>>>
>>> I think a few more words are needed here since from the code you are
>>> removing it seems very much like gso is used for something. If you have
>>> a proof that the "extra = gso" case is never hit then please explain it.
>>> Perhaps a reference to the removal of the last user?
>>>
>>> Or maybe it is the case that it should be used and the bug is that it
>>> isn't?
>>>
>> Looks like the latter one. 'extra' field should  be used to get hold of
>> the last extra info in the ring. ;-)
>>
>> But, the only extra info in upstream kernel is XEN_NETIF_EXTRA_TYPE_GSO,
>> so there's really no other extra info in the ring at that point. Could
>> it be possible that it is something from classic Xen kernel?
> The classic kernel netfront has exactly the same code it seems and
> netif_extra_type_gso is the only one I've ever heard of.
>
> Maybe this extra thing is just redundant unless/until a second extra
> comes along.

In our windows pv driver, we do not process this for GSO in tx path 
either. Maybe we ignored processing for some special GSO?

BTW, what is XEN_NETIF_EXTRA_FLAG_MORE actually for? Backend only 
processes it in xen_netback_tx_build_gops, but netfront xmit path does 
not really set this flag. I did process it in rx path of my windows pv 
driver(linux netfront did that too), but it seems unnecessary since 
netback does not set this flag at all.

Thanks
Annie
--
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