netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v2 2/7] vxlan: simplify exception handling

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]

Date:   Thu, 10 Nov 2016 11:21:19 -0800
From:   Pravin Shelar <pshelar@....org>
To:     Jiri Benc <jbenc@...hat.com>
Cc:     Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 2/7] vxlan: simplify exception handling

On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 10:33 AM, Jiri Benc <jbenc@...hat.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Nov 2016 10:10:09 -0800, Pravin Shelar wrote:
>> I wanted to do same, that is free dst and skb in caller function. But
>> that would need more changes due to discrepancy in IPv4 udp-tunnel and
>> IPv6 udp-tunnel api. IPv4 works on route entry and IPv6 needs dst
>> entry. so If caller frees dst-entry then I need additional variable to
>> keep track of dst entry which is what I am trying to avoid.
>
> Is additional variable really that bad? It's likely to be optimized by
> the compiler and it will lead to less surprises. You obviously caught
> me during review :-)
>
One additional variable is not bad but look at what has happened in
vxlan_xmit_one(). There are already more than 20 variables defined. It
is hard to read code in this case.
anyways I can add another variable to the function. I do not feel that
strongly about this.