netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH 6/6] Drivers: hv: vmbus: Refactor the ring-buffer iterator functions

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]

Date:   Fri, 15 Apr 2022 18:28:11 +0200
From:   Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@...il.com>
To:     "Michael Kelley (LINUX)" <mikelley@...rosoft.com>
Cc:     KY Srinivasan <kys@...rosoft.com>,
        Haiyang Zhang <haiyangz@...rosoft.com>,
        Stephen Hemminger <sthemmin@...rosoft.com>,
        Wei Liu <wei.liu@...nel.org>, Dexuan Cui <decui@...rosoft.com>,
        Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@...hat.com>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        "linux-hyperv@...r.kernel.org" <linux-hyperv@...r.kernel.org>,
        "virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org" 
        <virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 6/6] Drivers: hv: vmbus: Refactor the ring-buffer
 iterator functions

On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 09:00:31AM +0200, Andrea Parri wrote:
> > > @@ -470,7 +471,6 @@ struct vmpacket_descriptor *hv_pkt_iter_first_raw(struct
> > > vmbus_channel *channel)
> > > 
> > >  	return (struct vmpacket_descriptor *)(hv_get_ring_buffer(rbi) + rbi-
> > > >priv_read_index);
> > >  }
> > > -EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(hv_pkt_iter_first_raw);
> > 
> > Does hv_pkt_iter_first_raw() need to be retained at all as a
> > separate function?  I think after these changes, the only caller
> > is hv_pkt_iter_first(), in which case the code could just go
> > inline in hv_pkt_iter_first().  Doing that combining would
> > also allow the elimination of the duplicate call to 
> > hv_pkt_iter_avail().

Back to this, can you clarify what you mean by "the elimination of..."?
After moving the function "inline", hv_pkt_iter_avail() would be called
in to check for a non-NULL descriptor (in the inline function) and later
in the computation of bytes_avail.

Thanks,
  Andrea


> 
> Good point.  Will do.
> 
> Thanks,
>   Andrea