netdev - Re: [PATCH v9 net-next 08/15] net: softnet

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: <20240621191245.1016a5d6@kernel.org>
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2024 19:12:45 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org, "David S. Miller"
 <davem@...emloft.net>, Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...nel.org>,
 Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>, Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
 Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Frederic Weisbecker
 <frederic@...nel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Paolo Abeni
 <pabeni@...hat.com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Thomas Gleixner
 <tglx@...utronix.de>, Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>, Will Deacon
 <will@...nel.org>, Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>, Daniel Bristot de
 Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>, Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
 Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, Steven
 Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>,
 Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 net-next 08/15] net: softnet_data: Make xmit per
 task.

On Thu, 20 Jun 2024 15:21:58 +0200 Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> +static inline void netdev_xmit_set_more(bool more)
> +{
> +	current->net_xmit.more = more;
> +}
> +
> +static inline bool netdev_xmit_more(void)
> +{
> +	return current->net_xmit.more;
> +}
> +#endif
> +
> +static inline netdev_tx_t __netdev_start_xmit(const struct net_device_ops *ops,
> +					      struct sk_buff *skb, struct net_device *dev,
> +					      bool more)
> +{
> +	netdev_xmit_set_more(more);
> +	return ops->ndo_start_xmit(skb, dev);
> +}

The series looks clean, I'm happy for it to be applied as is.

But I'm curious whether similar helper organization as with the BPF
code would work. By which I mean - instead of read / write helpers
for each member can we not have one helper which returns the struct?
It would be a per-CPU struct on !RT and pointer from current on RT.
Does it change the generated code? Or stripping the __percpu annotation
is a PITA?