netdev - Re: [PATCH] net: make ->ndo_get_phys_port

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20171008.211455.636113197326702869.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:   Sun, 08 Oct 2017 21:14:55 -0700 (PDT)
From:   David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:     jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com
Cc:     adobriyan@...il.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        michael.chan@...adcom.com, saeedm@...lanox.com,
        simon.horman@...ronome.com, jiri@...lanox.com,
        ecree@...arflare.com, vivien.didelot@...oirfairelinux.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: make ->ndo_get_phys_port_name accept 32-bit len

From: Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>
Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2017 18:25:45 -0700

> On Sun, 8 Oct 2017 01:19:17 +0300, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
>> Buffer length passed into this hook is always IFNAMSIZ which is 16.
>> 
>> Code savings on x86_64:
>> 
>> 	add/remove: 0/0 grow/shrink: 1/9 up/down: 2/-45 (-43)
>> 	function                                     old     new   delta
>> 	rocker_cmd_get_port_settings_phys_name_proc     179     181      +2
>> 	rocker_port_get_phys_port_name                62      61      -1
>> 	mlxsw_sx_port_get_phys_port_name              54      50      -4
>> 	mlx5e_rep_get_phys_port_name                  61      57      -4
>> 	efx_get_phys_port_name                        50      46      -4
>> 	dsa_slave_get_phys_port_name                  54      50      -4
>> 	bnxt_vf_rep_get_phys_port_name                69      65      -4
>> 	bnxt_get_phys_port_name                       70      65      -5
>> 	mlxsw_sp_port_get_phys_port_name             116     107      -9
>> 	nfp_port_get_phys_port_name                  180     170     -10
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>
> 
> I don't think the gains justify the additional burden on backports.

Yeah I agree, this one is not really worth the pain.