netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 00/13] Control action percpu counters allocation by netlink flag

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: <200557cb-59a9-4dd7-b317-08d2dac8fa96@mojatatu.com>
Date:   Thu, 24 Oct 2019 13:17:00 -0400
From:   Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>
To:     Vlad Buslov <vladbu@...lanox.com>
Cc:     Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "xiyou.wangcong@...il.com" <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
        "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        "mleitner@...hat.com" <mleitner@...hat.com>,
        "dcaratti@...hat.com" <dcaratti@...hat.com>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 00/13] Control action percpu counters allocation
 by netlink flag

Hi Vlad,

On 2019-10-24 12:44 p.m., Vlad Buslov wrote:

> 
> Well, I like having it per-action better because of reasons I explained
> before (some actions don't use percpu allocator at all and some actions
> that are not hw offloaded don't need it), but I think both solutions
> have their benefits and drawbacks, so I'm fine with refactoring it.
>

I am happy you are doing all this great work already. I would be happier 
if you did it at the root level. It is something that we have been
meaning to deal with for a while now.

> Do you have any opinion regarding flag naming? Several people suggested
> to be more specific, but I strongly dislike the idea of hardcoding the
> name of a internal kernel data structure in UAPI constant that will
> potentially outlive the data structure by a long time.

Could you not just name the bit with a define to say what the bit
is for and still use the top level flag? Example we have
a bit called "TCA_FLAG_LARGE_DUMP_ON"

cheers,
jamal