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:   Tue, 6 Sep 2022 14:07:52 +0200
From:   Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To:     "mengyuanlou@...-swift.com" <mengyuanlou@...-swift.com>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, Jiawen Wu <jiawenwu@...stnetic.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 2] net: ngbe: sw init and hw init

> Is it necessary to pull the common code out into a library?
> There are some differences in register configuration.

More code, means more bugs. Somebody fixes the bug in one copy of the
code and has no idea there is a second copy of the code in another
driver with the same bug etc.

It also does not look like any of this is on the fast path. If you
have benchmarks which show using common code slows down the fast path,
moving frames into/out of the interface then you can have similar code
repeated in each driver.

So yes, it is necessary to create a collection of shared code.

> It is not convenient for customers to use.

Customers just installs the kernel RPM/deb from their Linux
distribution and it has all the drivers.  Backporting the drivers to a
vendor kernel should not be any more difficult because of the shared
code.

       Andrew

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ