netdev - Re: [PATCH v2] net: Add trace events for all receive exit points

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

Date:   Mon, 12 Nov 2018 15:46:53 -0500 (EST)
From:   Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
To:     rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc:     Geneviève Bastien <gbastien@...satic.net>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] net: Add trace events for all receive exit points

----- On Nov 12, 2018, at 3:40 PM, rostedt rostedt@...dmis.org wrote:

> On Mon, 12 Nov 2018 15:20:55 -0500 (EST)
> Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> Hrm, looking at this again, I notice that there is a single DEFINE_EVENT
>> using net_dev_template_simple.
>> 
>> We could simply turn netif_receive_skb_list_exit into a TRACE_EVENT(),
>> remove the net_dev_template_simple, and rename the net_dev_template_return
>> to net_dev_template ?
> 
> This too is only cosmetic and doesn't affect the code at all, because a
> TRACE_EVENT() is really just:
> 
> #define TRACE_EVENT(name, proto, args, tstruct, assign, print) \
>	DECLARE_EVENT_CLASS(name,			       \
>			     PARAMS(proto),		       \
>			     PARAMS(args),		       \
>			     PARAMS(tstruct),		       \
>			     PARAMS(assign),		       \
>			     PARAMS(print));		       \
>	DEFINE_EVENT(name, name, PARAMS(proto), PARAMS(args));
> 
> -- Steve
> 

Of course.

I also notice that in two cases, a "gro_result_t" is implicitly cast
to "int". I usually frown upon this kind of stuff, because it's asking
for trouble if gro_result_t typedef to something else than "int" in the
future.

I would recommend going for two templates, one which takes a "int"
ret parameter, and the other a "gro_result_t" ret parameter.

Or am I being too cautious ?

Thanks,

Mathieu


>> 
>> It's pretty clear from the prototype that it expects a "ret" argument,
>> so I don't see the need to also state it in the template name.
>> 

-- 
Mathieu Desnoyers
EfficiOS Inc.
http://www.efficios.com