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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <e152e992-8868-3590-708a-ecc9a98991e5@engleder-embedded.com> Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2023 21:16:54 +0100 From: Gerhard Engleder <gerhard@...leder-embedded.com> To: Alexander H Duyck <alexander.duyck@...il.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org Cc: davem@...emloft.net, kuba@...nel.org, edumazet@...gle.com, pabeni@...hat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v4 04/10] tsnep: Add adapter down state On 10.01.23 17:05, Alexander H Duyck wrote: > On Mon, 2023-01-09 at 20:15 +0100, Gerhard Engleder wrote: >> Add adapter state with flag for down state. This flag will be used by >> the XDP TX path to deny TX if adapter is down. >> >> Signed-off-by: Gerhard Engleder <gerhard@...leder-embedded.com> > > What value is this bit adding? > > From what I can tell you could probably just use netif_carrier_ok in > place of this and actually get better coverage in terms of identifying > state in which the Tx queue is able to function. So in your XDP_TX > patch you could do that if you really need it. TX does not check the link state, because the hardware just drops all packets if there is no link. I would like to keep it like that, because it minimizes special behavior if the link is down. netif_carrier_ok() would include the link state. > As far as the use in your close function it is redundant since the > IFF_UP is only set if ndo_open completes, and ndo_stop is only called > if IFF_UP is set. So your down flag would be redundant with !IFF_UP in > that case. tsnep_netdev_close() is called directly during bpf prog setup (see last commit). If the following tsnep_netdev_open() call fails, then this flag signals that the device is actually down even if IFF_UP is set. So in this case the down flag is not redundant to !IFF_UP. Is this a good enough reason for the flag? Gerhard
Powered by blists - more mailing lists