netdev - RE: [PATCH net-next 01/14] qed: Add CONFIG_QED

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CO2PR11MB00887DD775313A8DC3F39FA597710@CO2PR11MB0088.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Date:	Tue, 10 May 2016 17:16:16 +0000
From:	Yuval Mintz <Yuval.Mintz@...gic.com>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
CC:	netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Ariel Elior <Ariel.Elior@...gic.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH net-next 01/14] qed: Add CONFIG_QED_SRIOV

 > From: Yuval Mintz <Yuval.Mintz@...gic.com>
> Date: Mon, 9 May 2016 16:19:10 +0300
> 
> > +	/* bitmap indicating which fields hold valid values */
> > +	aligned_u64 valid_bitmap;
> 
> There is absolutely no reason to use aligned_u64 here.  That type is for handling
> a specific issue in user facing APIs, which this is not.

I'm not entirely convinced this is true; If we'll not enforce the alignment
of this 64-bit field, it's possible there will be differences between 32-bit
and 64-bit machines versions of this struct.
You have to recall that this is going to be copied via DMA between PF and VF,
so they must have the exact same representation of the structure.

[If I'm wrong on the technical part here, please correct me; I vaguely
seem to recall that this was already discussed on bnx2x's implementation
of the hw-channel which also uses aligned u64 fields]