netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] net/smc: make smc_hash_sk/smc_unhash

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: <535bcbb8-c446-458b-b7d4-c13201537ad5@linux.alibaba.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2024 10:16:28 +0800
From: Wen Gu <guwen@...ux.alibaba.com>
To: Zhengchao Shao <shaozhengchao@...wei.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com,
 kuba@...nel.org, pabeni@...hat.com
Cc: wenjia@...ux.ibm.com, jaka@...ux.ibm.com, alibuda@...ux.alibaba.com,
 tonylu@...ux.alibaba.com, weiyongjun1@...wei.com, yuehaibing@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] net/smc: make smc_hash_sk/smc_unhash_sk static



On 2024/3/25 09:25, Zhengchao Shao wrote:
> smc_hash_sk and smc_unhash_sk are only used in af_smc.c, so make them
> static and remove the output symbol. They can be called under the path
> .prot->hash()/unhash().
> 
> Signed-off-by: Zhengchao Shao <shaozhengchao@...wei.com>

LGTM, Thank you!

Reviewed-by: Wen Gu <guwen@...ux.alibaba.com>

> ---
>   include/net/smc.h | 3 ---
>   net/smc/af_smc.c  | 6 ++----
>   2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/include/net/smc.h b/include/net/smc.h
> index c9dcb30e3fd9..10684d0a33df 100644
> --- a/include/net/smc.h
> +++ b/include/net/smc.h
> @@ -26,9 +26,6 @@ struct smc_hashinfo {
>   	struct hlist_head ht;
>   };
>   
> -int smc_hash_sk(struct sock *sk);
> -void smc_unhash_sk(struct sock *sk);
> -
>   /* SMCD/ISM device driver interface */
>   struct smcd_dmb {
>   	u64 dmb_tok;
> diff --git a/net/smc/af_smc.c b/net/smc/af_smc.c
> index 4b52b3b159c0..e8dcd28a554c 100644
> --- a/net/smc/af_smc.c
> +++ b/net/smc/af_smc.c
> @@ -177,7 +177,7 @@ static struct smc_hashinfo smc_v6_hashinfo = {
>   	.lock = __RW_LOCK_UNLOCKED(smc_v6_hashinfo.lock),
>   };
>   
> -int smc_hash_sk(struct sock *sk)
> +static int smc_hash_sk(struct sock *sk)
>   {
>   	struct smc_hashinfo *h = sk->sk_prot->h.smc_hash;
>   	struct hlist_head *head;
> @@ -191,9 +191,8 @@ int smc_hash_sk(struct sock *sk)
>   
>   	return 0;
>   }
> -EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(smc_hash_sk);
>   
> -void smc_unhash_sk(struct sock *sk)
> +static void smc_unhash_sk(struct sock *sk)
>   {
>   	struct smc_hashinfo *h = sk->sk_prot->h.smc_hash;
>   
> @@ -202,7 +201,6 @@ void smc_unhash_sk(struct sock *sk)
>   		sock_prot_inuse_add(sock_net(sk), sk->sk_prot, -1);
>   	write_unlock_bh(&h->lock);
>   }
> -EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(smc_unhash_sk);
>   
>   /* This will be called before user really release sock_lock. So do the
>    * work which we didn't do because of user hold the sock_lock in the