netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v8 05/16] net: Slightly simplify net_mp_{open,close}

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20260131154837.312cf828@kernel.org>
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2026 15:48:37 -0800
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net,
 razor@...ckwall.org, pabeni@...hat.com, willemb@...gle.com,
 sdf@...ichev.me, john.fastabend@...il.com, martin.lau@...nel.org,
 jordan@...fe.io, maciej.fijalkowski@...el.com, magnus.karlsson@...el.com,
 dw@...idwei.uk, toke@...hat.com, yangzhenze@...edance.com,
 wangdongdong.6@...edance.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v8 05/16] net: Slightly simplify
 net_mp_{open,close}_rxq

On Thu, 29 Jan 2026 23:28:19 +0100 Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> -int net_mp_open_rxq(struct net_device *dev, unsigned ifq_idx,
> -		    struct pp_memory_provider_params *p);
> -int __net_mp_open_rxq(struct net_device *dev, unsigned int rxq_idx,
> -		      const struct pp_memory_provider_params *p,
> -		      struct netlink_ext_ack *extack);
> -void net_mp_close_rxq(struct net_device *dev, unsigned ifq_idx,
> -		      struct pp_memory_provider_params *old_p);
> -void __net_mp_close_rxq(struct net_device *dev, unsigned int rxq_idx,
> -			const struct pp_memory_provider_params *old_p);
> +int net_mp_open_rxq(struct net_device *dev, unsigned int rxq_idx,
> +		    const struct pp_memory_provider_params *p,
> +		    struct netlink_ext_ack *extack);
> +void net_mp_close_rxq(struct net_device *dev, unsigned int rxq_idx,
> +		      const struct pp_memory_provider_params *old_p);

SG, but netdevices.rst says:

  For the (mostly software) drivers that need to interact with the core
  stack, there are two sets of interfaces: ``dev_xxx``/``netdev_xxx``
  and ``netif_xxx`` (e.g., ``dev_set_mtu`` and ``netif_set_mtu``). The
  ``dev_xxx``/``netdev_xxx`` functions handle acquiring the instance
  lock themselves, while the ``netif_xxx`` functions assume that the
  driver has already acquired the instance lock.

Let's take this opportunity to replace the net_ prefix with netif_,
if we want to assume that the caller took the instance lock?