netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v4 10/12] net: dummy: add dummy shaper API

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: <20250219093626.08cbe243@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2025 09:36:26 -0800
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Stanislav Fomichev <stfomichev@...il.com>
Cc: Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...ichev.me>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
 davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com, pabeni@...hat.com, Saeed Mahameed
 <saeed@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v4 10/12] net: dummy: add dummy shaper API

On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 20:56:40 -0800 Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
> On 02/18, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 18:09:46 -0800 Stanislav Fomichev wrote:  
> > > A lot of selftests are using dummy module, convert it to netdev
> > > instance lock to expand the test coverage.  
> > 
> > I think the next version should be ready for merging.
> > What should we do with this patch?
> > Can we add a bool inside struct net_device to opt-in
> > for the ndo locking, without having to declare empty
> > ops? I think more drivers could benefit from it that way.  
> 
> Awesome, will drop this patch and add another one with a bool opt-in!
> 
> LMK if you prefer other name or a better comment:
> 
> @@ -2456,6 +2456,12 @@ struct net_device {
>          */
>         bool                    up;
> 
> +       /**
> +        * @request_ops_lock: request the core to run all @netdev_ops and
> +        * @ethtool_ops under the @lock.
> +        */
> +       bool                    request_ops_lock;
> +
>         /**
>          * @lock: netdev-scope lock, protects a small selection of fields.
>          * Should always be taken using netdev_lock() / netdev_unlock() helpers.
> 

Sure, SGTM