netdev - Re: [PATCH net] nfp: flower: avoid taking mutex in atomic context

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, 31 Jan 2023 13:21:29 -0800
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>
Cc:     Simon Horman <simon.horman@...igine.com>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        oss-drivers@...igine.com, Yanguo Li <yanguo.li@...igine.com>,
        Dan Carpenter <error27@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] nfp: flower: avoid taking mutex in atomic context

On Tue, 31 Jan 2023 15:27:51 +0200 Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > > > +	if ((port_id & NFP_FL_LAG_OUT) == NFP_FL_LAG_OUT) {
> > > > +		memset(&lag_info, 0, sizeof(struct nfp_tun_neigh_lag));  
> > > 
> > > This memset can be removed if you initialize lag_info to zero.
> > > struct nfp_tun_neigh_lag lag_info = {};  
> > 
> > Happy to change if that is preferred.
> > Is it preferred?  
> 
> I don't see why it can't be preferred.

It's too subjective to make Simon respin, IMO.