On Wed, Nov 19, 2025 at 01:33:31AM -0600, Dan Jurgens wrote:
> On 11/19/25 1:23 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 19, 2025 at 01:18:56AM -0600, Dan Jurgens wrote:
> >> On 11/19/25 12:35 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Nov 19, 2025 at 12:26:23AM -0600, Dan Jurgens wrote:
> >>>> On 11/18/25 3:55 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >>>>> On Tue, Nov 18, 2025 at 08:38:58AM -0600, Daniel Jurgens wrote:
> >>>>>> Classifiers can be used by more than one rule. If there is an existing
> >>>>>> classifier, use it instead of creating a new one.
> >>>>
> >>>>>> + struct virtnet_classifier *tmp;
> >>>>>> + unsigned long i;
> >>>>>> int err;
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> - err = xa_alloc(&ff->classifiers, &c->id, c,
> >>>>>> + xa_for_each(&ff->classifiers, i, tmp) {
> >>>>>> + if ((*c)->size == tmp->size &&
> >>>>>> + !memcmp(&tmp->classifier, &(*c)->classifier,
> >>>>>> tmp->size)) {
> >>>>>
> >>>>> note that classifier has padding bytes.
> >>>>> comparing these with memcmp is not safe, is it?
> >>>>
> >>>> The reserved bytes are set to 0, this is fine.
> >>>
> >>> I mean the compiler padding. set to 0 where?
> >>
> >> There's no compiler padding in virtio_net_ff_selector. There are
> >> reserved fields between the count and selector array.
> >
> > I might be missing something here, but are not the
> > structures this code compares of the type struct virtnet_classifier
> > not virtio_net_ff_selector ?
> >
> > and that one is:
> >
> > struct virtnet_classifier {
> > size_t size;
> > + refcount_t refcount;
> > u32 id;
> > struct virtio_net_resource_obj_ff_classifier classifier;
> > };
> >
> >
> > which seems to have some padding depending on the architecture.
>
> We're only comparing the ->classifier part of that, which is pad free.
Oh I see a classifier has a classifer inside :(
Should be something else, e.g. ff_classifier to avoid confusion I think.
Or resource_obj since it's the resource object. Or even obj.
But
> >
> >
> >
