netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH v3 1/2] can: fix multiple delivery of a single CAN frame for overlapping CAN filters

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: <551BBDF1.6070208@hartkopp.net>
Date:	Wed, 01 Apr 2015 11:44:17 +0200
From:	Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@...tkopp.net>
To:	Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@...gutronix.de>, linux-can@...r.kernel.org
CC:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, sergei.shtylyov@...entembedded.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 1/2] can: fix multiple delivery of a single CAN
 frame for overlapping CAN filters

Hi Marc,

On 01.04.2015 11:07, Marc Kleine-Budde wrote:
> On 04/01/2015 07:50 AM, Oliver Hartkopp wrote:
  >> +struct uniqframe {
>> +	const struct sk_buff *skb;
>> +	ktime_t tstamp;
>> +};
>
> Nitpick: as ktime_t is always a 64 bit value, I think putting it first
> might provide better alignment.

No objections. Good idea.

>
> No need to repost, I'll change this while applying, if you're okay with
> this.

I would suggest to take both patches into can-next (for 4.1).

Even though I did some testing on my i7 machine I would like this per-CPU 
stuff to come to maturity with some more testing of other users.

IMO the patch 1/2 (aka 'the fix') is not critical - at least it was not for 
the last 10 years :-)

So if $COSTUMER really needs this functionality it should be no problem to 
apply these really short and clear patches.

Best regards,
Oliver

--
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