netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH net-next v6 2/5] net: Add ifreq pointer field to kernel_hwtstamp

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]

Message-ID: <CAP5jrPGEjx-BvVDx5YSmrGSobPJJ9Uxk8N2wDG--+LGxHP7KCA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 4 May 2023 09:21:42 -0600
From: Max Georgiev <glipus@...il.com>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc: kory.maincent@...tlin.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org, 
	maxime.chevallier@...tlin.com, vladimir.oltean@....com, 
	vadim.fedorenko@...ux.dev, richardcochran@...il.com, 
	gerhard@...leder-embedded.com, liuhangbin@...il.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH net-next v6 2/5] net: Add ifreq pointer field to
 kernel_hwtstamp_config structure

On Wed, May 3, 2023 at 9:05 PM Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon,  1 May 2023 22:31:47 -0600 Maxim Georgiev wrote:
> > +     err = dev_eth_ioctl(dev, &ifrr, SIOCSHWTSTAMP);
> > +     if (!err) {
> > +             kernel_cfg->ifr->ifr_ifru = ifrr.ifr_ifru;
> > +             kernel_cfg->kernel_flags |= KERNEL_HWTSTAMP_FLAG_IFR_RESULT;
> > +     }
> > +     return err;
>
> nit: I think we should stick to the normal flow even if it costs
> a few extra lines:
>
>         err = dev_eth_ioctl(..
>         if (err)
>                 return err;
>
>         kernel_cfg->ifr->ifr_ifru = ifrr.ifr_ifru;
>         kernel_cfg->kernel_flags |= KERNEL_HWTSTAMP_FLAG_IFR_RESULT;
>
>         return 0;
>
>
> Other than that patches LGTM :)

Got it, wil update both generic_hwtstamp_get_lower() and
generic_hwtstamp_set_lower().

What would be the best practice with updating a single patch in a
stack (or a couple of
patches in a stack)? Should I resend only the updated patch(es), or
should I increment the
patch stack revision and resend all the parches?