netdev - Re: [PATCHv2 net-next 1/2] net_tstamp: add new flag HWTSTAMP_FLAG_BONDED_PHC

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, 9 Dec 2021 13:38:37 -0800
From:   Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>
To:     Hangbin Liu <liuhangbin@...il.com>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, Jay Vosburgh <j.vosburgh@...il.com>,
        Veaceslav Falico <vfalico@...il.com>,
        Andy Gospodarek <andy@...yhouse.net>,
        "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 net-next 1/2] net_tstamp: add new flag
 HWTSTAMP_FLAG_BONDED_PHC_INDEX

On Thu, Dec 09, 2021 at 01:33:47PM -0800, Richard Cochran wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 09, 2021 at 06:24:48PM +0800, Hangbin Liu wrote:
> 
> > +/* possible values for hwtstamp_config->flags */
> > +enum hwtstamp_flags {
> > +	/*
> > +	 * With this flag, the user could get bond active interface's
> > +	 * PHC index. Note this PHC index is not stable as when there
> > +	 * is a failover, the bond active interface will be changed, so
> > +	 * will be the PHC index.
> > +	 */
> > +	HWTSTAMP_FLAG_BONDED_PHC_INDEX = (1<<0),
> > +
> > +	/* add new constants above here */
> > +	__HWTSTAMP_FLAGS_CNT
> > +};
> 
> I think this shouldn't be an enumerated type, but rather simply a bit
> field of independent options.

Ok, it can be an enum (to be like the other fields in this header) but
still the bits need to be independent of each other.

IOW, you should drop __HWTSTAMP_FLAGS_CNT and instead use a mask of
valid bits.

Thanks,
Richard