[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2b7e1535-2d7a-4c7c-9687-9ddd42392802@embeddedor.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2024 15:30:25 -0600
From: "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@...eddedor.com>
To: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>, "Gustavo A. R. Silva"
<gustavoars@...nel.org>
Cc: Michael Chan <michael.chan@...adcom.com>,
Andrew Lunn <andrew+netdev@...n.ch>, "David S. Miller"
<davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
Potnuri Bharat Teja <bharat@...lsio.com>,
Christian Benvenuti <benve@...co.com>, Satish Kharat <satishkh@...co.com>,
Manish Chopra <manishc@...vell.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2][next] UAPI: ethtool: Use __struct_group() in struct
ethtool_link_settings
On 21/10/24 14:11, Andrew Lunn wrote:
>> struct ethtool_link_settings {
>> - __u32 cmd;
>> - __u32 speed;
>> - __u8 duplex;
>> - __u8 port;
>> - __u8 phy_address;
>> - __u8 autoneg;
>> - __u8 mdio_support;
>> - __u8 eth_tp_mdix;
>> - __u8 eth_tp_mdix_ctrl;
>> - __s8 link_mode_masks_nwords;
>> - __u8 transceiver;
>> - __u8 master_slave_cfg;
>> - __u8 master_slave_state;
>> - __u8 rate_matching;
>> - __u32 reserved[7];
>> + /* New members MUST be added within the __struct_group() macro below. */
>> + __struct_group(ethtool_link_settings_hdr, hdr, /* no attrs */,
>> + __u32 cmd;
>> + __u32 speed;
>> + __u8 duplex;
>> + __u8 port;
>> + __u8 phy_address;
>> + __u8 autoneg;
>> + __u8 mdio_support;
>> + __u8 eth_tp_mdix;
>> + __u8 eth_tp_mdix_ctrl;
>> + __s8 link_mode_masks_nwords;
>> + __u8 transceiver;
>> + __u8 master_slave_cfg;
>> + __u8 master_slave_state;
>> + __u8 rate_matching;
>> + __u32 reserved[7];
>> + );
>> __u32 link_mode_masks[];
>
> Dumb C question. What are the padding rules for a union, compared to
> base types? Do we know for sure the compiler is not going pad this
> structure differently because of the union?
We've been using the struct_group() family of helpers in Linux for years,
and we haven't seen any issues with padding an alignment. So, it seems
to do its job just fine. :)
Thanks
--
Gustavo
>
> It is however nicely constructed. The 12 __u8 making 3 32bit words, so
> we have a total of 12 32bit words, or 6 64bit words, before the
> link_mode_masks[], so i don't think padding is technically an issue,
> but it would be nice to know the C standard guarantees this.
>
> Andrew
Powered by blists - more mailing lists