netdev - Re: [PATCH net] netdevice.h: Fix unintentional disable of ALL_FOR

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: <329952c5-b208-1781-5604-2b408796ec90@gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 25 Nov 2020 11:06:16 +0200
From:   Tariq Toukan <ttoukan.linux@...il.com>
To:     Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
Cc:     Tariq Toukan <tariqt@...dia.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Moshe Shemesh <moshe@...dia.com>,
        Maxim Mikityanskiy <maximmi@...dia.com>,
        Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] netdevice.h: Fix unintentional disable of ALL_FOR_ALL
 features on upper device



On 11/25/2020 5:25 AM, Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 11:48:35AM +0100, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>>
>> Well, the 'increment' part was suggesting the function was adding
>> flags, not removing them.
> 
> The idea of the increment part is that we're adding a constituent
> device, not that we're adding features.  There have always been
> features which were conjunctions, i.e., they must be supported by
> all underlying devices for them to be enabled on the virtual device.
> 
> Your use of the increment function is unusual, as you're not adding
> features that belong to one underlying device, but rather you're
> trying to enable a feature on the virtual device unconditionally.
> 
>> We might ask Herbert Xu if we :
>>
>> 1) Need to comment the function, or change its name to be more descriptive.
>> 2) Change the behavior (as you suggested)
>> 3) Other choice.
> 
> I think Tariq's patch is fine, although a comment should be added
> to netdev_add_tso_features as this use of the increment function
> is nonstandard.
> 

Thanks Herbert, I'll add a comment and re-spin.

> Thanks,
>