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:   Wed, 1 Feb 2023 10:21:51 +0200
From:   Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...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, Jan 31, 2023 at 01:21:29PM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> 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.

I'm not insisting on respin, but would like to hear why writing compact
code with cleared variable on stack, which anyway needs to be cleared is
not preferred.

Thanks