netdev - Re: [RFC net-next] net: extend netdev features

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: <f6bc28f6-55b6-856b-949f-7715574eb869@huawei.com>
Date:   Mon, 12 Jul 2021 10:43:04 +0800
From:   "shenjian (K)" <shenjian15@...wei.com>
To:     Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>
CC:     <davem@...emloft.net>, <kuba@...nel.org>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linuxarm@...neuler.org>,
        "shenjian15@...wei.com" <shenjian15@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC net-next] net: extend netdev features



在 2021/7/10 23:11, Stephen Hemminger 写道:
> On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 17:40:47 +0800
> Jian Shen <shenjian15@...wei.com> wrote:
>
>> For the prototype of netdev_features_t is u64, and the number
>> of netdevice feature bits is 64 now. So there is no space to
>> introduce new feature bit.
>>
>> I did a small change for this. Keep the prototype of
>> netdev_feature_t, and extend the feature members in struct
>> net_device to an array of netdev_features_t. So more features
>> bits can be used.
>>
>> As this change, some functions which use netdev_features_t as
>> parameter or returen value will be affected.
>> I did below changes:
>> a. parameter: "netdev_features_t" to "netdev_features_t *"
>> b. return value: "netdev_feature_t" to "void", and add
>> "netdev_feature_t *" as output parameter.
>>
>> I kept some functions no change, which are surely useing the
>> first 64 bit of net device features now, such as function
>> nedev_add_tso_features(). In order to minimize to changes.
>>
>> For the features are array now, so it's unable to do logical
>> operation directly. I introduce a inline function set for
>> them, including "netdev_features_and/andnot/or/xor/equal/empty".
>>
>> For NETDEV_FEATURE_COUNT may be more than 64, so the shift
>> operation for NETDEV_FEATURE_COUNT is illegal. I changed some
>> macroes and functions, which does shift opertion with it.
>>
>> I haven't finished all the changes, for it affected all the
>> drivers which use the feature, need more time and test. I
>> sent this RFC patch, want to know whether this change is
>> acceptable, and how to improve it.
>>
>> Any comments will be helpful.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jian Shen <shenjian15@...wei.com>
> Infrastructure changes must be done as part of the patch that
> needs the new feature bit. It might be that your feature bit is
> not accepted as part of the review cycle, or a better alternative
> is proposed.
> .
OK, I will send it with patch including my new feature bit next time.

I haven't finish the whole changes, and I sent this one, wanting to know 
whether
the change is acceptable or whether need use more reasonable shceme.

Thanks!


Jian Shen