netdev - Re: [PATCH/RFC net-next] rocker: forward packets to CPU when a port in promiscuous mode

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: <20150715075406.GA25954@vergenet.net>
Date:	Wed, 15 Jul 2015 16:54:08 +0900
From:	Simon Horman <simon.horman@...ronome.com>
To:	Scott Feldman <sfeldma@...il.com>
Cc:	Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>, Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	john fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC net-next] rocker: forward packets to CPU when a port
 in promiscuous mode

On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 12:18:20AM -0700, Scott Feldman wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 11:34 PM, Simon Horman
> <simon.horman@...ronome.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 10:32:54PM -0700, Scott Feldman wrote:
> 
> >> > @@ -5263,11 +5301,16 @@ static int rocker_port_master_changed(struct net_device *dev)
> >> >          * 3. Other, e.g. being added to or removed from a bond or openvswitch,
> >> >          *    in which case nothing is done
> >> >          */
> >>
> >> Maybe comment above needs adjusting?
> >
> > Indeed, sorry for missing that.
> > How about this?
> >
> >
> >         /* There are currently five cases handled here:
> >          * 1. Joining a bridge
> >          * 2. Joining a Open vSwitch datapath
> >          * 3. Leaving a previously joined bridge
> >          * 4. Leaving a previously joined Open vSwitch datapath
> >          * 5. Other, e.g. being added to or removed from a bond,
> >          *    in which case nothing is done
> >          */
> 
> Seems like one of those comments that needs adjusting each time the
> code changes, which isn't good.  Maybe just kill the comment or write
> in a generic way saying what code is doing.  Code seems obvious enough
> to me to not require a comment.

My purpose in adding the comment in the first place was
to document the "other" case, as it wasn't handled and thus
didn't seem obvious.

Perhaps something like this would work.

	/* N.B: Do nothing if the type of master is not supported */
--
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