netdev - Re: [patch net-next repost 1/3] idr: Use unsigned long instead of int

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:   Wed, 16 Aug 2017 13:06:12 +0200
From:   Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
To:     Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc:     Chris Mi <chrism@...lanox.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        jhs@...atatu.com, xiyou.wangcong@...il.com, davem@...emloft.net,
        mawilcox@...rosoft.com
Subject: Re: [patch net-next repost 1/3] idr: Use unsigned long instead of int

Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 12:58:53PM CEST, eric.dumazet@...il.com wrote:
>On Wed, 2017-08-16 at 12:53 +0200, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>
>> rhashtable is unnecesary big hammer for this. IDR is nice fit for
>> this purpose.
>
>Obviously IDR does not fit, since you have to change its ABI.

I don't think it is a problem to adjust something to your needs.
Moreover, if it's API is misdesigned from the beginning. We are just
putting IDR back on track, cleaning it's API. I don't see anything wrong
on that. Everyone would benefit.

>
>If rhashtable does not fit this, then I wonder why we spent so many days
>of work adding it in the kernel.

It fits, sure. But it is not needed (the big hammer I mentioned).
We don't need a custom key for lookup. Just a single pointer as a key
would do. And that is exactly why IDR is here for. Does not make sense
to use anything else when we have the thing to do the work right here.