netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v2 0/8] net: Shift responsibility for FDB notifications to drivers

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <87zfmdkixn.fsf@nvidia.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2024 12:38:54 +0100
From: Petr Machata <petrm@...dia.com>
To: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
CC: Petr Machata <petrm@...dia.com>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, "David
 S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
	<netdev@...r.kernel.org>, Ido Schimmel <idosch@...dia.com>, Amit Cohen
	<amcohen@...dia.com>, Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com>, Andy Roulin
	<aroulin@...dia.com>, <mlxsw@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 0/8] net: Shift responsibility for FDB
 notifications to drivers


Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com> writes:

> On 11/5/24 10:45, Petr Machata wrote:
>> Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com> writes:
>>> On 11/4/24 12:43, Petr Machata wrote:
>>>> Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org> writes:
>>>>> On Thu, 24 Oct 2024 18:57:35 +0200 Petr Machata wrote:
>>>>>> Besides this approach, we considered just passing a boolean back from the
>>>>>> driver, which would indicate whether the notification was done. But the
>>>>>> approach presented here seems cleaner.
>>>>>
>>>>> Oops, I missed the v2, same question:
>>>>>
>>>>>   What about adding a bit to the ops struct to indicate that 
>>>>>   the driver will generate the notification? Seems smaller in 
>>>>>   terms of LoC and shifts the responsibility of doing extra
>>>>>   work towards more complex users.
>>
>> How about passing an explicit bool* argument for the callee to set? I'm
>> suspicious of these one-off errno protocols. Most of the time the return
>> value is an errno, these aberrations feel easy to miss.
>
> I would be ok with that - a large arguments list should not be something
> concerning for the control path. Just to be clear: the caller init the
> bool to false, only the callees doing the notification set it, right?

Yes.

OK, I'll do it like that.