netdev - Re: [PATCH RFC v4 net 1/3] ipv6: Remove BACKTRACK macro

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: <20141015001409.GB27904@devbig242.prn2.facebook.com>
Date:	Tue, 14 Oct 2014 17:14:11 -0700
From:	Martin Lau <kafai@...com>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
CC:	<netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <hannes@...essinduktion.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v4 net 1/3] ipv6: Remove BACKTRACK macro

Hi,

> > +struct fib6_node *fib6_backtrack(struct fib6_node *fn,
> > +				 struct in6_addr *saddr);
> > +
> 
> I am completely mystified why you did this, could you explain the
> logic?  I want to know what drove you to make this exported.
>
> I marked it static in my example patch, and there is no caller outside
> of route.c
> 

I was thinking this function only works on 'struct fib6_node', so
it belongs to ip6_fib.c more than route.c.
f.e. like fib6_lookup() whose callers are also only in route.c

> Doing this also eliminates inlining opportunitites.
> 
> Please keep this private inside of route.c
I will keep it private in route.c and re-submit.

Do you have input on the function signature and also the following two
patches?

Thanks,
--Martin
--
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