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
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2015 16:00:45 +0000 From: Thomas Graf <tgraf@...g.ch> To: Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net> Cc: davem@...emloft.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, herbert@...dor.apana.org.au, paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, edumazet@...gle.com, john.r.fastabend@...el.com, josh@...htriplett.org, netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/9] rhashtable: Do hashing inside of rhashtable_lookup_compare() On 01/16/15 at 03:37pm, Patrick McHardy wrote: > On 02.01, Thomas Graf wrote: > > +{ > > + struct nft_hash_elem *he = ptr; > > + struct nft_compare_arg *x = arg; > > + > > + if (!nft_data_cmp(&he->key, &x->elem->key, x->set->klen)) { > > + x->elem->cookie = &he->node; > > + x->elem->flags = 0; > > + if (x->set->flags & NFT_SET_MAP) > > + nft_data_copy(&x->elem->data, he->data); > > Is there any reason why we need to perform the assignments in the > compare function? The reason why I'm asking is because to add > timeout support, I need another compare function for nft_hash_lookup() > and I'd prefer to use a single one for both cases. No. I kept the nft_hash code as intact as possible without changing any semantics (aside from the lost optimiztion of keeping the pprev pointer from the lookup when doing removals). No reason speaks against moving it out. -- 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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists