netdev - Re: [patch net-next v6 06/11] net: sched: use block index as a handle instead of qdisc when block is shared

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]

Message-ID: <47d2949d-6ebc-6113-8bd1-3ecdb15563f8@mojatatu.com>
Date:   Sun, 7 Jan 2018 08:11:19 -0500
From:   Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>
To:     Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     davem@...emloft.net, xiyou.wangcong@...il.com, mlxsw@...lanox.com,
        andrew@...n.ch, vivien.didelot@...oirfairelinux.com,
        f.fainelli@...il.com, michael.chan@...adcom.com,
        ganeshgr@...lsio.com, saeedm@...lanox.com, matanb@...lanox.com,
        leonro@...lanox.com, idosch@...lanox.com,
        jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com, simon.horman@...ronome.com,
        pieter.jansenvanvuuren@...ronome.com, john.hurley@...ronome.com,
        alexander.h.duyck@...el.com, ogerlitz@...lanox.com,
        john.fastabend@...il.com, daniel@...earbox.net, dsahern@...il.com
Subject: Re: [patch net-next v6 06/11] net: sched: use block index as a handle
 instead of qdisc when block is shared

On 18-01-06 03:43 PM, Jiri Pirko wrote:


> 
>> @@ -886,8 +887,13 @@ static int tcf_fill_node(struct net *net, struct sk_buff *skb,
>> 	tcm->tcm_family = AF_UNSPEC;
>> 	tcm->tcm__pad1 = 0;
>> 	tcm->tcm__pad2 = 0;
>> -	tcm->tcm_ifindex = qdisc_dev(q)->ifindex;
>> -	tcm->tcm_parent = parent;
>> +	if (q) {
>> +		tcm->tcm_ifindex = qdisc_dev(q)->ifindex;
>> +		tcm->tcm_parent = parent;
>> +	} else {
>> +		tcm->tcm_ifindex = 0; /* block index is stored in parent */
>> +		tcm->tcm_parent = block->index;
>> +	}
> 
> Please guys, please look at this reuse (also on clt side). I would like
> you to double-check this reuse of existing API for balock_index carrying
> purpose. I believe it's UAPI safe. But please, check it out carefully.
> 


Should not break any ABI/UAPI AFAIK. Maybe go for a negative ifindex
(not sure if zero means something speacial to someone).

cheers,
jamal