netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 5/9] page_pool: don't use driver-set flags field directly

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: <a7782cf1-e04a-e274-6a87-4952008bcc0c@huawei.com>
Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2023 19:40:32 +0800
From: Yunsheng Lin <linyunsheng@...wei.com>
To: Alexander Lobakin <aleksander.lobakin@...el.com>
CC: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet
	<edumazet@...gle.com>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni
	<pabeni@...hat.com>, Maciej Fijalkowski <maciej.fijalkowski@...el.com>,
	Larysa Zaremba <larysa.zaremba@...el.com>, Alexander Duyck
	<alexanderduyck@...com>, Jesper Dangaard Brouer <hawk@...nel.org>, Ilias
 Apalodimas <ilias.apalodimas@...aro.org>, Simon Horman
	<simon.horman@...igine.com>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 5/9] page_pool: don't use driver-set flags field
 directly

On 2023/7/28 22:03, Alexander Lobakin wrote:
> From: Yunsheng Lin <linyunsheng@...wei.com>
> Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2023 20:36:50 +0800
> 
>> On 2023/7/27 22:43, Alexander Lobakin wrote:
>>
>>>  
>>>  struct page_pool {
>>>  	struct page_pool_params p;
>>> -	long pad;
>>> +
>>> +	bool dma_map:1;				/* Perform DMA mapping */
>>> +	enum {
>>> +		PP_DMA_SYNC_ACT_DISABLED = 0,	/* Driver didn't ask to sync */
>>> +		PP_DMA_SYNC_ACT_DO,		/* Perform DMA sync ops */
>>> +	} dma_sync_act:1;
>>> +	bool page_frag:1;			/* Allow page fragments */
>>>  
>>
>> Isn't it more common or better to just remove the flags field in
>> 'struct page_pool_params' and pass the flags by parameter like
>> below, so that patch 4 is not needed?
>>
>> struct page_pool *page_pool_create(const struct page_pool_params *params,
>> 				   unsigned int	flags);
> 
> You would need a separate patch to convert all the page_pool_create()
> users then either way.
> And it doesn't look really natural to me to pass both driver-set params
> and driver-set flags as separate function arguments. Someone may then
> think "why aren't flags just put in the params itself". The fact that
> Page Pool copies the whole params in the page_pool struct after
> allocating it is internals, page_pool_create() prototype however isn't.
> Thoughts?

It just seems odd to me that dma_map and page_frag is duplicated as we
seems to have the same info in the page_pool->p.flags.

What about:
In [PATCH net-next 4/9] page_pool: shrink &page_pool_params a tiny bit,
'flags' is bit-field'ed with 'dma_dir', what about changing 'dma_dir'
to be bit-field'ed with 'dma_sync_act', so that page_pool->p.flags stays
the same as before, and 'dma_map' & 'page_frag' do not seems be really
needed as we have the same info in page_pool->p.flags?


> 
> Thanks,
> Olek
> 
> .
>