netdev - Re: [PATCH v5 01/10 iwl-next] idpf: implement virtchnl transaction manager

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: <52fa2a08-b39d-4ffe-80da-c9a71009a652@intel.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2024 12:16:37 -0800
From: Alan Brady <alan.brady@...el.com>
To: Alexander Lobakin <aleksander.lobakin@...el.com>
CC: <intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, "Przemek
 Kitszel" <przemyslaw.kitszel@...el.com>, Igor Bagnucki
	<igor.bagnucki@...el.com>, Joshua Hay <joshua.a.hay@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 01/10 iwl-next] idpf: implement virtchnl transaction
 manager

On 2/21/2024 4:15 AM, Alexander Lobakin wrote:
> From: Alan Brady <alan.brady@...el.com>
> Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2024 16:49:40 -0800
> 
>> This starts refactoring how virtchnl messages are handled by adding a
>> transaction manager (idpf_vc_xn_manager).
> 
> [...]
> 
>> +/**
>> + * struct idpf_vc_xn_params - Parameters for executing transaction
>> + * @send_buf: kvec for send buffer
>> + * @recv_buf: kvec for recv buffer, may be NULL, must then have zero length
>> + * @timeout_ms: timeout to wait for reply
>> + * @async: send message asynchronously, will not wait on completion
>> + * @async_handler: If sent asynchronously, optional callback handler. The user
>> + *		   must be careful when using async handlers as the memory for
>> + *		   the recv_buf _cannot_ be on stack if this is async.
>> + * @vc_op: virtchnl op to send
>> + */
>> +struct idpf_vc_xn_params {
>> +	struct kvec send_buf;
>> +	struct kvec recv_buf;
>> +	int timeout_ms;
>> +	bool async;
>> +	async_vc_cb async_handler;
>> +	u32 vc_op;
>> +};
> 
> Sorry for not noticing this before, but this struct can be local to
> idpf_virtchnl.c.
> 

Nice catch, I can definitely move this. I'm also considering though, all 
of these structs I'm adding here are better suited in idpf_virtchnl.c 
all together. I think the main thing preventing that is the 
idpf_vc_xn_manager field in idpf_adapter. Would it be overkill to make 
the field in idpf_adapter a pointer so I can forward declare and kalloc 
it? I think I can then move everything to idpf_virtchnl.c. Or do you see 
a better alternative? Or is it not worth the effort? Thanks!

>> +
>> +/**
>> + * struct idpf_vc_xn_manager - Manager for tracking transactions
>> + * @ring: backing and lookup for transactions
>> + * @free_xn_bm: bitmap for free transactions
>> + * @xn_bm_lock: make bitmap access synchronous where necessary
>> + * @salt: used to make cookie unique every message
>> + */
> 
> [...]
> 
> Thanks,
> Olek