netdev - Re: [patch net-next 1/4] net: sched: make tc_action_ops->get

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20171011204354.GC9297@nanopsycho>
Date:   Wed, 11 Oct 2017 22:43:54 +0200
From:   Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
To:     Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
Cc:     Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>,
        Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...lanox.com>, matanb@...lanox.com,
        leonro@...lanox.com, mlxsw@...lanox.com
Subject: Re: [patch net-next 1/4] net: sched: make tc_action_ops->get_dev
 return dev and avoid passing net

Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 06:34:51PM CEST, xiyou.wangcong@...il.com wrote:
>On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 2:19 PM, Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us> wrote:
>> Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 07:44:53PM CEST, xiyou.wangcong@...il.com wrote:
>>>On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 12:30 AM, Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us> wrote:
>>>> -static int tcf_mirred_device(const struct tc_action *a, struct net *net,
>>>> -                            struct net_device **mirred_dev)
>>>> +static struct net_device *tcf_mirred_get_dev(const struct tc_action *a)
>>>>  {
>>>> -       int ifindex = tcf_mirred_ifindex(a);
>>>> +       struct tcf_mirred *m = to_mirred(a);
>>>>
>>>> -       *mirred_dev = __dev_get_by_index(net, ifindex);
>>>> -       if (!*mirred_dev)
>>>> -               return -EINVAL;
>>>> -       return 0;
>>>> +       return __dev_get_by_index(m->net, m->tcfm_ifindex);
>>>
>>>Hmm, why not just return m->tcfm_dev?
>>
>> I just follow the existing code. The change you suggest should be a
>> separate follow-up patch.
>
>Why?

I try to do small contained changes per patch. The resulting code is
doing the same thing as the original, therefore reducing possible bug
appearance. 

>
>Your goal is "make tc_action_ops->get_dev return dev and avoid passing net",
>using m->tcfm_dev is simpler and could save you from adding a net pointer
>to struct tcf_mirred too.