netdev - Re: [PATCH net] ipv4: include NLM_F_APPEND flag in append route notifications

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: <55819E5A.8020801@cumulusnetworks.com>
Date:	Wed, 17 Jun 2015 09:20:42 -0700
From:	roopa <roopa@...ulusnetworks.com>
To:	Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@...il.com>
CC:	Scott Feldman <sfeldma@...il.com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] ipv4: include NLM_F_APPEND flag in append route notifications

On 6/17/15, 8:35 AM, Alexander Duyck wrote:
>
>> @@ -1189,8 +1190,9 @@ int fib_table_insert(struct fib_table *tb, struct
>> fib_config *cfg)
>>                          fib_release_info(fi_drop);
>>                          if (state & FA_S_ACCESSED)
>> rt_cache_flush(cfg->fc_nlinfo.nl_net);
>> +                       nlflags |= NLM_F_REPLACE;
>>                          rtmsg_fib(RTM_NEWROUTE, htonl(key), new_fa, 
>> plen,
>> -                               tb->tb_id, &cfg->fc_nlinfo, 
>> NLM_F_REPLACE);
>> +                               tb->tb_id, &cfg->fc_nlinfo, nlflags);
>>
>>                          goto succeeded;
>>
>
> Why even bother modifying this part?  Is this actually needed at all, 
> are there some other flags you plan to drop into nlflags as well that 
> would be passed as a part of this message?

agreed, for the same reason my initial patch did not touch this part. 
Nope, no other flags. I was trying to meet scotts concerns.
>
>> @@ -1201,7 +1203,9 @@ int fib_table_insert(struct fib_table *tb, struct
>> fib_config *cfg)
>>                  if (fa_match)
>>                          goto out;
>>
>> -               if (!(cfg->fc_nlflags & NLM_F_APPEND))
>> +               if (cfg->fc_nlflags & NLM_F_APPEND)
>> +                       nlflags |= NLM_F_APPEND;
>> +               else
>>                          fa = fa_first;
>>          }
>>          err = -ENOENT;
>
> I'm not sure I see the point of using the |=.   Why not just use a = 
> and save yourself an instruction or two since you don't really need 
> the OR operator in this case.
>
ack,

I would prefer keeping my initial patch which was pretty non-intrusive.

thanks,
Roopa

--
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