[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20190324.200254.1946143057733371048.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2019 20:02:54 -0400 (EDT)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: Jason@...c4.com
Cc: linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v9 19/19] net: WireGuard secure network tunnel
From: "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2019 01:11:22 -0600
> +static __always_inline void swap_endian(u8 *dst, const u8 *src, u8 bits)
> +{
Unless you have an absolutely requirement on inlining (if uninlined,
the compilation would break), you must not use the __always_inline
keyword and you must let the compiler decide what to do.
Said another way: "The code isn't optimal with my compiler on my computer
unless I force inline this" is not a valid reason to use __always_inline
And for this reason we never use __inline in foo.c files, always let the
compiler decide.
This applies to your entire submission.
> + ((u64 *)dst)[0] = be64_to_cpu(((const __be64 *)src)[0]);
> + ((u64 *)dst)[1] = be64_to_cpu(((const __be64 *)src)[1]);
Are 'dst' and 'src' both 64-bit aligned? If not you'll get traps on some cpus.
> + __skb_queue_head_init(&packets);
> + if (!skb_is_gso(skb)) {
> + skb->next = NULL;
Why? Direct ->next and ->prev pointer accesses should never be used,
along with anything that assumes what the implentation of skb lists
looks like.
Always use the helpers instead.
> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireguard/hashtables.c b/drivers/net/wireguard/hashtables.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..8aedc17b85f9
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/drivers/net/wireguard/hashtables.c
No way.
Do not invent your own hashtables, we have several generic versions in
tree and in particular rhashtable.
If the generic kernel facilities have a weakness, fix that instead of
rolling an entire new hashtable implementation.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists