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 07:57:18 -0700
From:   Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To:     Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
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

On Wed, 2017-08-16 at 13:06 +0200, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> 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.

Except that your patch is gigantic, and nobody really can review it.

You could define idr_alloc_ext() maybe.

Then provide a patch series grouped so that each maintainer can review
its part.

Or leave legacy code using the old idr_alloc() in place.