mbox series

[net-next,0/7] ethtool: Module EEPROM API improvements

Message ID 20210622065052.2545107-1-idosch@idosch.org (mailing list archive)
Headers show
Series ethtool: Module EEPROM API improvements | expand

Message

Ido Schimmel June 22, 2021, 6:50 a.m. UTC
From: Ido Schimmel <idosch@nvidia.com>

This patchset contains various improvements to recently introduced
module EEPROM netlink API. Noticed these while adding module EEPROM
write support.

Ido Schimmel (7):
  ethtool: Use correct command name in title
  ethtool: Document correct attribute type
  ethtool: Decrease size of module EEPROM get policy array
  ethtool: Document behavior when module EEPROM bank attribute is
    omitted
  ethtool: Use kernel data types for internal EEPROM struct
  ethtool: Validate module EEPROM length as part of policy
  ethtool: Validate module EEPROM offset as part of policy

 Documentation/networking/ethtool-netlink.rst |  8 +++++---
 include/linux/ethtool.h                      | 12 ++++++------
 include/uapi/linux/ethtool_netlink.h         |  2 +-
 net/ethtool/eeprom.c                         | 13 ++++---------
 net/ethtool/netlink.h                        |  2 +-
 5 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)

Comments

Jakub Kicinski June 22, 2021, 4:30 p.m. UTC | #1
On Tue, 22 Jun 2021 09:50:45 +0300 Ido Schimmel wrote:
> From: Ido Schimmel <idosch@nvidia.com>
> 
> This patchset contains various improvements to recently introduced
> module EEPROM netlink API. Noticed these while adding module EEPROM
> write support.

Scary that 3/7 was not generating a warning.

Reviewed-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
patchwork-bot+netdevbpf@kernel.org June 22, 2021, 5:50 p.m. UTC | #2
Hello:

This series was applied to netdev/net-next.git (refs/heads/master):

On Tue, 22 Jun 2021 09:50:45 +0300 you wrote:
> From: Ido Schimmel <idosch@nvidia.com>
> 
> This patchset contains various improvements to recently introduced
> module EEPROM netlink API. Noticed these while adding module EEPROM
> write support.
> 
> Ido Schimmel (7):
>   ethtool: Use correct command name in title
>   ethtool: Document correct attribute type
>   ethtool: Decrease size of module EEPROM get policy array
>   ethtool: Document behavior when module EEPROM bank attribute is
>     omitted
>   ethtool: Use kernel data types for internal EEPROM struct
>   ethtool: Validate module EEPROM length as part of policy
>   ethtool: Validate module EEPROM offset as part of policy
> 
> [...]

Here is the summary with links:
  - [net-next,1/7] ethtool: Use correct command name in title
    https://git.kernel.org/netdev/net-next/c/78c57f22e3c8
  - [net-next,2/7] ethtool: Document correct attribute type
    https://git.kernel.org/netdev/net-next/c/913d026fbfaf
  - [net-next,3/7] ethtool: Decrease size of module EEPROM get policy array
    https://git.kernel.org/netdev/net-next/c/f5fe211d13af
  - [net-next,4/7] ethtool: Document behavior when module EEPROM bank attribute is omitted
    https://git.kernel.org/netdev/net-next/c/37a025e83902
  - [net-next,5/7] ethtool: Use kernel data types for internal EEPROM struct
    https://git.kernel.org/netdev/net-next/c/b8c48be23c2d
  - [net-next,6/7] ethtool: Validate module EEPROM length as part of policy
    https://git.kernel.org/netdev/net-next/c/0dc7dd02ba7a
  - [net-next,7/7] ethtool: Validate module EEPROM offset as part of policy
    https://git.kernel.org/netdev/net-next/c/88f9a87afeee

You are awesome, thank you!
--
Deet-doot-dot, I am a bot.
https://korg.docs.kernel.org/patchwork/pwbot.html
Michal Kubecek June 22, 2021, 11:10 p.m. UTC | #3
On Tue, Jun 22, 2021 at 09:30:05AM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Jun 2021 09:50:45 +0300 Ido Schimmel wrote:
> > From: Ido Schimmel <idosch@nvidia.com>
> > 
> > This patchset contains various improvements to recently introduced
> > module EEPROM netlink API. Noticed these while adding module EEPROM
> > write support.
> 
> Scary that 3/7 was not generating a warning.

Actually, it's not as scary as it seems. If an array variable is
declared with fixed size and then defined and initialized with just
"[]", the number of elements is still taken from the declaration, not
from the maximum initializer index. So there was nothing to worry about,
we just had a partially initialized array with extra elements zero
initialized.

Michal