netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next-mlx5 02/13] net/mlx5: Add new driver lib for mappings unique ids to data

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: <20200121190420.GM51881@unreal>
Date:   Tue, 21 Jan 2020 21:04:20 +0200
From:   Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>
To:     Paul Blakey <paulb@...lanox.com>
Cc:     Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...lanox.com>,
        Oz Shlomo <ozsh@...lanox.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>,
        Vlad Buslov <vladbu@...lanox.com>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next-mlx5 02/13] net/mlx5: Add new driver lib for
 mappings unique ids to data

On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 06:16:11PM +0200, Paul Blakey wrote:
> Add a new interface for mapping data to a given id range (max_id),
> and back again. It supports variable sized data, and different
> allocators, and read/write locks.
>
> This mapping interface also supports delaying the mapping removal via
> a workqueue. This is for cases where we need the mapping to have
> some grace period in regards to finding it back again, for example
> for packets arriving from hardware that were marked with by a rule
> with an old mapping that no longer exists.
>
> We also provide a first implementation of the interface is idr_mapping
> that uses idr for the allocator and a mutex lock for writes
> (add/del, but not for find).
>
> Signed-off-by: Paul Blakey <paulb@...lanox.com>
> Reviewed-by: Oz Shlomo <ozsh@...lanox.com>
> Reviewed-by: Mark Bloch <markb@...lanox.com>
> ---

I have many issues with this patch, but two main are:
1. This is general implementation without proper documentation and test
which doesn't belong to driver code.
2. It looks very similar to already existing code, for example xarray.

Thanks