netdev - Re: [net-next PATCH v3 01/14] net: dsa: qca8k: cache match data to speed up access

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: <62ddd3db.1c69fb81.d8b0f.a851@mx.google.com>
Date:   Sun, 24 Jul 2022 22:49:41 +0200
From:   Christian Marangi <ansuelsmth@...il.com>
To:     Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>
Cc:     Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
        Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...il.com>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [net-next PATCH v3 01/14] net: dsa: qca8k: cache match data to
 speed up access

On Mon, Jul 25, 2022 at 02:18:43AM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 24, 2022 at 10:42:20PM +0200, Christian Marangi wrote:
> > Sure, it was just a stupid idea to set everything not strictly neeeded
> > only after verifying that we have a correct switch... But it doesn't
> > make sense as qca8k_priv is freed anyway if that's the case.
> 
> I don't understand what you're saying. With your proposed logic,
> of_device_get_match_data() will be called anyway in qca8k_read_switch_id(),
> and if the switch id is valid, it will be called once more in qca8k_sw_probe().
> With my proposed logic, of_device_get_match_data() will be called exactly
> once, to populate priv->info *before* the first instance of when it's
> going to be needed.

Just ignore... it's me trying to give a reason for my broken logic.

-- 
	Ansuel