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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <CALzJLG8jy-eRe9g93h1ChSdVN3ynON5f=KXH5_5rVMWqvn0-=Q@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2016 11:22:32 +0300 From: Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@....mellanox.co.il> To: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com> Cc: Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...lanox.com>, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Linux Netdev List <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, Or Gerlitz <ogerlitz@...lanox.com>, Hadar Hen-Zion <hadarh@...lanox.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 2/2] net/mlx5e: Query minimum required header copy during xmit On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 8:15 AM, Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com> wrote: > On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 01:20:02AM +0300, Saeed Mahameed wrote: >> From: Hadar Hen Zion <hadarh@...lanox.com> >> >> Add support for query the minimum inline mode from the Firmware. >> It is required for correct TX steering according to L3/L4 packet >> headers. >> >> Each send queue (SQ) has inline mode that defines the minimal required >> headers that needs to be copied into the SQ WQE. >> The driver asks the Firmware for the wqe_inline_mode device capability >> value. In case the device capability defined as "vport context" the >> driver must check the reported min inline mode from the vport context >> before creating its SQs. >> >> Signed-off-by: Hadar Hen Zion <hadarh@...lanox.com> >> Signed-off-by: Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...lanox.com> > ... >> + int outlen = MLX5_ST_SZ_BYTES(query_nic_vport_context_out); >> + u32 *out; >> + >> + out = mlx5_vzalloc(outlen); >> + if (!out) >> + return; > > Just discovered this... > outlen is a small constant here, yet you want to try to vmalloc it? > What is the point? > There are 67 places in mlx5 where failed kmalloc is retried with > vmalloc... was that path ever tested? The point is that there are a lot of places in the code that want to allocate huge commands and mlx5_vzalloc is a nice black box that provides the method to allocate such huge chunks of memory. Now sometimes people tend to reuse same pieces of code for code consistency. I don't see any harm from doing that.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists