netdev - Re: [PATCH 2/9] ipv6: sr: add code base for control plane support of SR-IPv6

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: <58060B71.40900@uclouvain.be>
Date:   Tue, 18 Oct 2016 13:45:53 +0200
From:   David Lebrun <david.lebrun@...ouvain.be>
To:     Tom Herbert <tom@...bertland.com>
CC:     Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/9] ipv6: sr: add code base for control plane support
 of SR-IPv6

On 10/17/2016 07:07 PM, Tom Herbert wrote:
>> +static inline void seg6_pernet_lock(struct net *net)
>> +{
>> +       mutex_lock(&seg6_pernet(net)->lock);
>> +}
>> +
>> +static inline void seg6_pernet_unlock(struct net *net)
>> +{
>> +       mutex_unlock(&seg6_pernet(net)->lock);
>> +}
>> +
> IMO it's better not to hide mutex_lock/unlock in a static inline
> function. Pairing mutex_lock with mutex_lock is critical and should be
> each to see in code.
> 

OK

>> +
>> +static int seg6_genl_sethmac(struct sk_buff *skb, struct genl_info *info)
>> +{
>> +       return -ENOTSUPP;
> 
> Is the intent to implement this later?
> 

The implementation is in this patch series with the rest of the HMAC code


Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (182 bytes)