netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v2 1/2] net: stmmac: Only enable enhanced addressing mode when needed

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: <20190910135427.GB9897@ulmo>
Date:   Tue, 10 Sep 2019 15:54:27 +0200
From:   Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>
To:     Jose Abreu <Jose.Abreu@...opsys.com>
Cc:     "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Giuseppe Cavallaro <peppe.cavallaro@...com>,
        Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@...com>,
        Jon Hunter <jonathanh@...dia.com>,
        Bitan Biswas <bbiswas@...dia.com>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org" <linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 1/2] net: stmmac: Only enable enhanced
 addressing mode when needed

On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 08:32:38AM +0000, Jose Abreu wrote:
> From: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>
> Date: Sep/09/2019, 20:11:27 (UTC+00:00)
> 
> > On Mon, Sep 09, 2019 at 04:07:04PM +0000, Jose Abreu wrote:
> > > From: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>
> > > Date: Sep/09/2019, 16:25:45 (UTC+00:00)
> > > 
> > > > @@ -92,6 +92,7 @@ struct stmmac_dma_cfg {
> > > >  	int fixed_burst;
> > > >  	int mixed_burst;
> > > >  	bool aal;
> > > > +	bool eame;
> > > 
> > > bools should not be used in struct's, please change to int.
> > 
> > Huh? Since when? "aal" right above it is also bool. Can you provide a
> > specific rationale for why we shouldn't use bool in structs?
> 
> Please see https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/11/21/384.

The context is slightly different here. stmmac_dma_cfg exists once for
each of these ethernet devices in the system, and I would assume that in
the vast majority of cases there's exactly one such device in the system
so the potential size increase is very small. On the other hand, there
are potentially very many struct sched_dl_entity, so the size impact is
multiplied.

Anyway, if you insist I'll rewrite this to use an unsigned int bitfield.

Thierry

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (834 bytes)