netdev - Re: [PATCH net] ipv6: Add lwtunnel encap size of all siblings in nexthop calculation

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <0a479141-7887-462a-b154-bcb8881b43c2@intel.com>
Date:   Wed, 15 Feb 2023 16:58:05 +0100
From:   Alexander Lobakin <aleksander.lobakin@...el.com>
To:     David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>
CC:     Lu Wei <luwei32@...wei.com>, <davem@...emloft.net>,
        <edumazet@...gle.com>, <kuba@...nel.org>, <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] ipv6: Add lwtunnel encap size of all siblings in
 nexthop calculation

From: David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2023 11:11:04 -0700

> On 2/14/23 10:39 AM, Alexander Lobakin wrote:
>>> diff --git a/net/ipv6/route.c b/net/ipv6/route.c
>>> index e74e0361fd92..a6983a13dd20 100644
>>> --- a/net/ipv6/route.c
>>> +++ b/net/ipv6/route.c
>>> @@ -5540,16 +5540,17 @@ static size_t rt6_nlmsg_size(struct fib6_info *f6i)
>>>  		nexthop_for_each_fib6_nh(f6i->nh, rt6_nh_nlmsg_size,
>>>  					 &nexthop_len);
>>>  	} else {
>>> +		struct fib6_info *sibling, *next_sibling;
>>>  		struct fib6_nh *nh = f6i->fib6_nh;
>>>  
>>>  		nexthop_len = 0;
>>>  		if (f6i->fib6_nsiblings) {
>>> -			nexthop_len = nla_total_size(0)	 /* RTA_MULTIPATH */
>>> -				    + NLA_ALIGN(sizeof(struct rtnexthop))
>>> -				    + nla_total_size(16) /* RTA_GATEWAY */
>>> -				    + lwtunnel_get_encap_size(nh->fib_nh_lws);
>>> +			rt6_nh_nlmsg_size(nh, &nexthop_len);
>>>  
>>> -			nexthop_len *= f6i->fib6_nsiblings;
>>> +			list_for_each_entry_safe(sibling, next_sibling,
>>> +						 &f6i->fib6_siblings, fib6_siblings) {
>>> +				rt6_nh_nlmsg_size(sibling->fib6_nh, &nexthop_len);
>>> +			}
>>
>> Just a random nitpick that you shouldn't put braces {} around oneliners :D
>>
> 
> I believe there can be exceptions and braces make multiple lines like
> that more readable.

Hmm, you know, agree for this one, that for-loop line break changes
things a bit.

Thanks,
Olek