netdev - Re: [patch net-next v2 02/10] net: sched: introduce tcf block infractructure

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:   Tue, 16 May 2017 08:07:25 -0400
From:   Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>
To:     Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     davem@...emloft.net, xiyou.wangcong@...il.com,
        dsa@...ulusnetworks.com, edumazet@...gle.com,
        stephen@...workplumber.org, daniel@...earbox.net,
        alexander.h.duyck@...el.com, simon.horman@...ronome.com,
        mlxsw@...lanox.com
Subject: Re: [patch net-next v2 02/10] net: sched: introduce tcf block
 infractructure


Jiri,

I am sorry i am tied up elsewhere but will respond in chunks.

On 17-05-15 04:38 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote:


>  static inline void qdisc_cb_private_validate(const struct sk_buff *skb, int sz)
>  {
>  	struct qdisc_skb_cb *qcb;


> +int tcf_block_get(struct tcf_block **p_block,
> +		  struct tcf_proto __rcu **p_filter_chain)
> +{
> +	struct tcf_block *block = kzalloc(sizeof(*block), GFP_KERNEL);
> +
> +	if (!block)
> +		return -ENOMEM;
> +	block->p_filter_chain = p_filter_chain;
> +	*p_block = block;
> +	return 0;
> +}

tcf_block_get() sounds odd. tcf_block_create()?

> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(tcf_block_get);
> +
> +void tcf_block_put(struct tcf_block *block)
> +{
> +	if (!block)
> +		return;
> +	tcf_destroy_chain(block->p_filter_chain);
> +	kfree(block);
> +}

tcf_destroy_block()?

[..]

> +	error = tcf_block_get(&flow->block, &flow->filter_list);
> +	if (error) {
> +		kfree(flow);
> +		goto err_out;
> +	}
> +
>  	flow->q = qdisc_create_dflt(sch->dev_queue, &pfifo_qdisc_ops, classid);
>  	if (!flow->q)
>  		flow->q = &noop_qdisc;
> @@ -346,14 +353,13 @@ static void atm_tc_walk(struct Qdisc *sch, struct qdisc_walker *walker)
>  	}
>  }
>
> -static struct tcf_proto __rcu **atm_tc_find_tcf(struct Qdisc *sch,
> -						unsigned long cl)
> +static struct tcf_block *atm_tc_tcf_block(struct Qdisc *sch, unsigned long cl)

Any reason you removed the verb "find" from all these calls?
eg above: better to have atm_tc_tcf_block_find()?

cheers,
jamal