netdev - Re: [PATCH for-next 1/4] devlink: refactor validation of finding required arguments

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:   Sun, 10 Feb 2019 19:46:57 -0700
From:   David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>
To:     Aya Levin <ayal@...lanox.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jiri Pirko <jiri@...lanox.com>
Cc:     Moshe Shemesh <moshe@...lanox.com>,
        Eran Ben Elisha <eranbe@...lanox.com>,
        Tal Alon <talal@...lanox.com>,
        Ariel Almog <ariela@...lanox.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH for-next 1/4] devlink: refactor validation of finding
 required arguments

On 2/10/19 11:28 AM, Aya Levin wrote:
> @@ -950,6 +951,51 @@ static int param_cmode_get(const char *cmodestr,
>  	return 0;
>  }
>  
> +struct dl_args_metadata {
> +	uint32_t o_flag;
> +	char err_msg[DL_ARGS_REQUIRED_MAX_ERR_LEN];
> +};
> +
> +static const struct dl_args_metadata dl_args_required[] = {
> +	{DL_OPT_PORT_TYPE,	      "Port type not set.\n"},
> +	{DL_OPT_PORT_COUNT,	      "Port split count option expected.\n"},
> +	{DL_OPT_SB_POOL,	      "Pool index option expected.\n"},
> +	{DL_OPT_SB_SIZE,	      "Pool size option expected.\n"},
> +	{DL_OPT_SB_TYPE,	      "Pool type option expected.\n"},
> +	{DL_OPT_SB_THTYPE,	      "Pool threshold type option expected.\n"},
> +	{DL_OPT_SB_TH,		      "Threshold option expected.\n"},
> +	{DL_OPT_SB_TC,		      "TC index option expected.\n"},
> +	{DL_OPT_ESWITCH_MODE,	      "E-Switch mode option expected.\n"},
> +	{DL_OPT_ESWITCH_INLINE_MODE,  "E-Switch inline-mode option expected.\n"},
> +	{DL_OPT_DPIPE_TABLE_NAME,     "Dpipe table name expected\n"},
> +	{DL_OPT_DPIPE_TABLE_COUNTERS, "Dpipe table counter state expected\n"},
> +	{DL_OPT_ESWITCH_ENCAP_MODE,   "E-Switch encapsulation option expected.\n"},
> +	{DL_OPT_PARAM_NAME,	      "Parameter name expected.\n"},
> +	{DL_OPT_PARAM_VALUE,	      "Value to set expected.\n"},
> +	{DL_OPT_PARAM_CMODE,	      "Configuration mode expected.\n"},
> +	{DL_OPT_REGION_SNAPSHOT_ID,   "Region snapshot id expected.\n"},
> +	{DL_OPT_REGION_ADDRESS,	      "Region address value expected.\n"},
> +	{DL_OPT_REGION_LENGTH,	      "Region length value expected.\n"},
> +};
> +
> +static int validate_finding_required_dl_args(uint32_t o_required,
> +					     uint32_t o_found)
> +{
> +	uint32_t dl_args_required_size;
> +	uint32_t o_flag;
> +	int i;
> +
> +	dl_args_required_size = ARRAY_SIZE(dl_args_required);
> +	for (i = 0; i < dl_args_required_size; i++) {
> +		o_flag = dl_args_required[i].o_flag;
> +		if ((o_required & o_flag) && !(o_found & o_flag)) {
> +			pr_err("%s", dl_args_required[i].err_msg);
> +			return -EINVAL;
> +		}
> +	}
> +	return 0;
> +}
> +

much better. Thank you for refactoring this.