netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v2 1/4] net: switchdev: Prepare for deferred functions modifying objects

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 10 Jan 2017 09:57:18 -0800
From:   Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
To:     Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net,
        vivien.didelot@...oirfairelinux.com, andrew@...n.ch,
        marcelo.leitner@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 1/4] net: switchdev: Prepare for deferred
 functions modifying objects

On 01/10/2017 02:09 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 09:45:20PM CET, f.fainelli@...il.com wrote:
>> In preparation for adding support for deferred dump operations, allow
>> specifying a deferred function whose signature allows read/write
>> objects.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
>> ---
>> net/switchdev/switchdev.c | 21 ++++++++++++++++-----
>> 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/net/switchdev/switchdev.c b/net/switchdev/switchdev.c
>> index 017801f9dbaa..3d70ad02c617 100644
>> --- a/net/switchdev/switchdev.c
>> +++ b/net/switchdev/switchdev.c
>> @@ -100,11 +100,14 @@ static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(deferred_lock);
>>
>> typedef void switchdev_deferred_func_t(struct net_device *dev,
>> 				       const void *data);
>> +typedef void switchdev_deferred_func_rw_t(struct net_device *dev,
>> +					  void *data);
>>
>> struct switchdev_deferred_item {
>> 	struct list_head list;
>> 	struct net_device *dev;
>> 	switchdev_deferred_func_t *func;
>> +	switchdev_deferred_func_rw_t *func_rw;
> 
> I'm missing why you need to have 2 funcs here. Why you just can't re-use
> func?

I wanted to let the existing callers be passed down a const void *data,
and not update them with void *data, since there is value in keeping
that annotated. This may be considered overkill, I don't know.
-- 
Florian