netdev - Re: [PATCH v2 net-next 03/14] ipv6: prepare inet6_fill

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: Fri, 23 Feb 2024 08:19:27 +0100
From: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
To: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
Cc: "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, Ido Schimmel <idosch@...dia.com>,
	Jiri Pirko <jiri@...dia.com>, eric.dumazet@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 net-next 03/14] ipv6: prepare inet6_fill_ifinfo() for
 RCU protection

Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 05:43:17PM CET, edumazet@...gle.com wrote:
>On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 5:36 PM Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us> wrote:
>>
>> Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 11:50:10AM CET, edumazet@...gle.com wrote:
>> >We want to use RCU protection instead of RTNL
>>
>> Is this a royal "We"? :)
>>
>>
>> >for inet6_fill_ifinfo().
>>
>> This is a motivation for this patch, not what the patch does.
>>
>> Would it be possible to maintain some sort of culture for the patch
>> descriptions, even of the patches which are small and simple?
>>
>> https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/v6.6/process/submitting-patches.html#describe-your-changes
>>
>> Your patch descriptions are usually hard to follow for me to understand
>> what the patch does :( Yes, I know you do it "to displease me" as you
>> wrote couple of months ago but maybe think about the others too, also
>> the ones looking in a git log/show and guessing.
>>
>> Don't beat me.
>>
>
>I dunno.
>
>Do I need to explain why we need READ_ONCE()/WRITE_ONCE() on RCU for
>all the patches ?

I don't think so. If the motivation is described in the cover letter
properly, then in the incremental patches you just tell the codebase
what to change clearly, that describes the matter of changes. No
redundancy, clear motivation, clear patch description, easy to
understand for everyone.


>
>Documentation/RCU has already 36000 lines...