netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] net: ifdefy the wireless pointers in struct net

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: <20220517104443.68756db3@kernel.org>
Date:   Tue, 17 May 2022 10:44:43 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
Cc:     davem@...emloft.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org, edumazet@...gle.com,
        pabeni@...hat.com, alex.aring@...il.com, stefan@...enfreihafen.org,
        mareklindner@...mailbox.ch, sw@...onwunderlich.de, a@...table.cc,
        sven@...fation.org, linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-wpan@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] net: ifdefy the wireless pointers in struct
 net_device

On Tue, 17 May 2022 09:51:31 +0200 Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Mon, 2022-05-16 at 14:56 -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > 
> > +#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_WIRELESS)
> >  	struct wireless_dev	*ieee80211_ptr;
> > +#endif  
> 
> Technically, you should be able to use CONFIG_CFG80211 here, but in
> practice I'd really hope nobody enables WIRELESS without CFG80211 :)

ack

> > +++ b/include/net/cfg80211.h
> > @@ -8004,10 +8004,7 @@ int cfg80211_register_netdevice(struct net_device *dev);
> >   *
> >   * Requires the RTNL and wiphy mutex to be held.
> >   */
> > -static inline void cfg80211_unregister_netdevice(struct net_device *dev)
> > -{
> > -	cfg80211_unregister_wdev(dev->ieee80211_ptr);
> > -}
> > +void cfg80211_unregister_netdevice(struct net_device *dev);  
> 
> Exported functions aren't free either - I think in this case I'd
> (slightly) prefer the extra ifdef.

fine

> Anyway, we can do this, but I also like Florian's suggestion about the
> union, and sent an attempt at a disambiguation patch there.

Would you be willing to do that as a follow up? Are you talking about
wifi only or all the proto pointers?

As a netdev maintainer I'd like to reduce the divergence in whether 
the proto pointers are ifdef'd or not.