From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kni: add support for core_id param in single
 threaded mode
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2016 16:44:44 -0700
Message-ID: <20160921164444.6ea1030e@xeon-e3>
References: <20160910135016.6468-2-vladyslav.buslov@harmonicinc.com>
 <20160920181637.26778-1-vladyslav.buslov@harmonicinc.com>
 <20160920113636.38b2ed2a@xeon-e3>
 <366f0b2a-abb6-9fdc-cd12-d79185d32c5e@intel.com>
 <MWHPR11MB13603BE178683944EE80D7999DF60@MWHPR11MB1360.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <c66c9cfe-2702-a3a0-94b3-e3232030c55d@intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Vladyslav Buslov <Vladyslav.Buslov@harmonicinc.com>, "dev@dpdk.org"
 <dev@dpdk.org>
To: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mail-pa0-f49.google.com (mail-pa0-f49.google.com
 [209.85.220.49]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A74AE37B2
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Thu, 22 Sep 2016 01:44:34 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by mail-pa0-f49.google.com with SMTP id hm5so22951442pac.0
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Wed, 21 Sep 2016 16:44:34 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <c66c9cfe-2702-a3a0-94b3-e3232030c55d@intel.com>
List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>

On Wed, 21 Sep 2016 19:23:47 +0100
Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com> wrote:

> On 9/21/2016 6:15 PM, Vladyslav Buslov wrote:
> >> On 9/20/2016 7:36 PM, Stephen Hemminger wrote:  
> >>> On Tue, 20 Sep 2016 21:16:37 +0300
> >>> Vladyslav Buslov <vladyslav.buslov@harmonicinc.com> wrote:
> >>>  
> >>>> @@ -123,6 +125,9 @@ static int __net_init kni_init_net(struct net *net)
> >>>>  	/* Clear the bit of device in use */
> >>>>  	clear_bit(KNI_DEV_IN_USE_BIT_NUM, &knet->device_in_use);
> >>>>
> >>>> +	mutex_init(&knet->kni_kthread_lock);
> >>>> +	knet->kni_kthread = NULL;
> >>>> +  
> >>>
> >>> Why not just use kzalloc() here? You would still need to init the
> >>> mutex etc, but it would be safer.
> >>>  
> >>
> >> Hi Vladyslav,
> >>
> >> This is good suggestion, if you send a new version for this update, please
> >> keep my Ack.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> ferruh  
> > 
> > Hi Ferruh, Stephen,
> > 
> > Could you please elaborate on using kzalloc for this code.
> > Currently kni_thread_lock is value member of kni_net structure and never explicitly allocated or deallocated.
> > Kni_kthread is pointer member of kni_net and is implicitly created and destroyed by kthread_run, kthread_stop functions.
> > Which one of those do you suggest to allocate with kzalloc() and how would it improve safety?
> >   
> 
> Currently:
> 
> kni_init_net() {
>     knet = kmalloc(..);
>     ..
>     mutex_init(..);
>     knet->kni_thread = NULL;
> }
> 
> If you allocate knet via kzalloc(), no need to assign NULL to
> kni_thread. Also this is safer because any uninitialized knet field will
> be zero instead of random value.
> 
> This is what I understood at least J

Also any additional fields in knet will be set, avoiding any present
or future uninitialized memory bugs.