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]

Date:   Thu, 24 Oct 2019 18:05:08 +0000
From:   Vlad Buslov <vladbu@...lanox.com>
To:     Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>
CC:     Vlad Buslov <vladbu@...lanox.com>, 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


On Thu 24 Oct 2019 at 20:17, Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com> wrote:
> 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"

Yes, of course. I was talking strictly about naming of
TCA_ACT_FLAGS_FAST_INIT flag value constant.

>
> cheers,
> jamal