netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v9 03/10] lib: packing: add pack_fields() and unpack

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: <89f34386-1d18-423f-a105-228eb3d9c345@intel.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2024 15:05:54 -0800
From: Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@...el.com>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Vladimir Oltean
	<vladimir.oltean@....com>
CC: Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com>, Andrew Morton
	<akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Paolo Abeni
	<pabeni@...hat.com>, Tony Nguyen <anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com>, "Przemek
 Kitszel" <przemyslaw.kitszel@...el.com>, Masahiro Yamada
	<masahiroy@...nel.org>, netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v9 03/10] lib: packing: add pack_fields() and
 unpack_fields()



On 12/9/2024 2:18 PM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Wed, 04 Dec 2024 17:22:49 -0800 Jacob Keller wrote:
>> +PHONY += scripts_gen_packed_field_checks
>> +scripts_gen_packed_field_checks: scripts_basic
>> +	$(Q)$(MAKE) $(build)=scripts scripts/gen_packed_field_checks
> 
> You need to add this binary to .gitignore, one more round :(
> The rest LGTM
> 

At least its an easy enough fix.

>> +/* Small packed field. Use with bit offsets < 256, buffers < 32B and
>> + * unpacked structures < 256B.
>> + */
>> +struct packed_field_s {
>> +	GEN_PACKED_FIELD_MEMBERS(u8);
>> +};
>> +
>> +/* Medium packed field. Use with bit offsets < 65536, buffers < 8KB and
>> + * unpacked structures < 64KB.
>> + */
>> +struct packed_field_m {
>> +	GEN_PACKED_FIELD_MEMBERS(u16);
>> +};
> 
> Random thought - would it be more intuitive to use the same size
> suffixes as readX() / writeX()? b = byte, w = u16, l = u32, q = 64? 
> If you're immediate reaction isn't "of course!" -- ignore me.

Its fine with me, but Vladimir was the one to change them from numbers
(packed_field_8 to packed_field_s and packed_field_16 to packed_field_m).

@Vladimir, thoughts on using the byte/word suffixes over "small/medium"?

I'll work on preparing v10 with the git ignore fix, but will wait a bit
before sending to get feedback here.

Thanks,
Jake