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: <20170516131034.GM1939@nanopsycho.orion> Date: Tue, 16 May 2017 15:10:34 +0200 From: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us> To: Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com> Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, 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 Tue, May 16, 2017 at 02:52:31PM CEST, jhs@...atatu.com wrote: >On 17-05-16 08:23 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote: >> Tue, May 16, 2017 at 02:07:25PM CEST, jhs@...atatu.com wrote: >> > >> > 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()? >> >> I used get/put because I plan to allow sharing of block between qdiscs >> in future. Then there will be a refcount. >> > >Ok, I guess I should read further into the patches.. > > >> > > -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()? >> >> Yeah, I was thinking about it. The thing is, the callback does not do >> any lookup so "find" is not accurate. Also without "find" this is >> shorter so I decided for this naming variant. >> > >They do select some chain - at least that was the intent. >Are you not planning to use this to pick a chain in a block? No. I just need to use this to get the whole block of chains.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists