netdev - Re: Genetlink per cmd policies

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 01 Oct 2020 17:52:27 +0200
From:   Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
Cc:     Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>, Michal Kubecek <mkubecek@...e.cz>,
        dsahern@...nel.org, pablo@...filter.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Genetlink per cmd policies

On Thu, 2020-10-01 at 08:50 -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:

> > > > > > > +	memcpy(op, &family->ops[i], sizeof(*op));      
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > What's wrong with struct assignment? :)

> FWIW the 400 was without the -Os with -Os it's more like 50. So I'll
> just go for it and do the struct assignment.

FWIW, I really don't think it actually _matters_. I just started using
struct assignments more since they're type safe and you don't trip up
any of the static checkers :-) More in non-kernel projects than the
kernel though, to be honest.

johannes