netdev.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
To: Liang Jie <buaajxlj@163.com>
Cc: edumazet@google.com, davem@davemloft.net, pabeni@redhat.com,
	horms@kernel.org, anthony.l.nguyen@intel.com,
	andrew+netdev@lunn.ch, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Liang Jie <liangjie@lixiang.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net v3] net: Refine key_len calculations in rhashtable_params
Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2024 11:13:28 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20241227111328.540ced11@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20241220082436.1195276-1-buaajxlj@163.com>

On Fri, 20 Dec 2024 16:24:36 +0800 Liang Jie wrote:
> From: Liang Jie <liangjie@lixiang.com>
> 
> This patch improves the calculation of key_len in the rhashtable_params
> structures across the net driver modules by replacing hardcoded sizes
> and previous calculations with appropriate macros like sizeof_field()
> and offsetofend().
> 
> Previously, key_len was set using hardcoded sizes like sizeof(u32) or
> sizeof(unsigned long), or using offsetof() calculations. This patch
> replaces these with sizeof_field() and correct use of offsetofend(),
> making the code more robust, maintainable, and improving readability.
> 
> Using sizeof_field() and offsetofend() provides several advantages:
> - They explicitly specify the size of the field or the end offset of a
>   member being used as a key.
> - They ensure that the key_len is accurate even if the structs change in
>   the future.
> - They improve code readability by clearly indicating which fields are used
>   and how their sizes are determined, making the code easier to understand
>   and maintain.
> 
> For example, instead of:
>     .key_len    = sizeof(u32),
> we now use:
>     .key_len    = sizeof_field(struct mae_mport_desc, mport_id),
> 
> And instead of:
>     .key_len    = offsetof(struct efx_tc_encap_match, linkage),
> we now use:
>     .key_len    = offsetofend(struct efx_tc_encap_match, ip_tos_mask),
> 
> These changes eliminate the risk in certain scenarios of including
> unintended padding or extra data in the key, ensuring the rhashtable
> functions correctly.

IMHO the change is not worth the churn. Does any upstream code checker
/ tool prevent from new instances of this pattern occurring?
-- 
pw-bot: reject

      reply	other threads:[~2024-12-27 19:13 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2024-12-20  8:24 [PATCH net v3] net: Refine key_len calculations in rhashtable_params Liang Jie
2024-12-27 19:13 ` Jakub Kicinski [this message]

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20241227111328.540ced11@kernel.org \
    --to=kuba@kernel.org \
    --cc=andrew+netdev@lunn.ch \
    --cc=anthony.l.nguyen@intel.com \
    --cc=buaajxlj@163.com \
    --cc=davem@davemloft.net \
    --cc=edumazet@google.com \
    --cc=horms@kernel.org \
    --cc=liangjie@lixiang.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=pabeni@redhat.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).