netdev - Re: [PATCH net 0/4] net: add rx

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: <20160128061012.GC59058@redhat.com>
Date:	Thu, 28 Jan 2016 01:10:13 -0500
From:	Jarod Wilson <jarod@...hat.com>
To:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
	Jiri Pirko <jiri@...lanox.com>,
	Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
	Tom Herbert <tom@...bertland.com>,
	Jay Vosburgh <j.vosburgh@...il.com>,
	Veaceslav Falico <vfalico@...il.com>,
	Andy Gospodarek <gospo@...ulusnetworks.com>,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net 0/4] net: add rx_unhandled stat counter

On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 01:02:15AM -0500, Jarod Wilson wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 01:09:47PM -0800, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > On Wed, 2016-01-27 at 15:21 -0500, Jarod Wilson wrote:
> > 
> > > diff --git a/include/linux/netdevice.h b/include/linux/netdevice.h
> > > index 289c231..7973ab5 100644
> > > --- a/include/linux/netdevice.h
> > > +++ b/include/linux/netdevice.h
> > > @@ -180,6 +180,7 @@ struct net_device_stats {
> > >  	unsigned long	tx_window_errors;
> > >  	unsigned long	rx_compressed;
> > >  	unsigned long	tx_compressed;
> > > +	unsigned long	rx_unhandled;
> > >  };
> > >  
> > 
> > This structure is deprecated, please do not add new fields in it,
> > as it will increase netlink answers for no good reason.
> > 
> > rtnl_link_stats64 is what really matters these days.
> 
> I'll respin the set without that, along with s/unhandled/nohandler/, which
> I somehow got screwed up in my head and realized a split second after
> hitting send. Outside of that, does this approach look sane? Should I
> bother with touching /proc/net/dev output or not?

Also, please excuse the poor excuse for a cover-letter that had a
duplicate of patch 1 in it. I'll fix that the next pass too.

/me hangs head in shame...

-- 
Jarod Wilson
jarod@...hat.com