netdev - Re: [ethtool PATCH 4/4] v5 Add RX packet classification interface

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Date:	Wed, 04 May 2011 22:54:09 +0100
From:	Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@...arflare.com>
To:	Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@...el.com>
Cc:	Dimitris Michailidis <dm@...lsio.com>,
	"davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	"Kirsher, Jeffrey T" <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [ethtool PATCH 4/4] v5 Add RX packet classification interface

On Wed, 2011-05-04 at 14:07 -0700, Alexander Duyck wrote:
> On 5/4/2011 11:45 AM, Ben Hutchings wrote:
[...]
> > Please can you confirm that the location specified for
> > ETHTOOL_SRXCLSRLINS will indeed be used as a priority in case of
> > overlapping filters?
> >
> > Ben.
> >
> 
> The ixgbe approach should be nearly identical in terms of how the 
> priorities are based on the location of the filters.

OK, good.

> The original 
> version from Santwona had the rule manager breaking the rules up into 7 
> sections so that rules that specified fewer fields would be near the end 
> of the list.  I'm pretty sure that was all due to priorities from what I 
> could see in the niu driver since the filters that covered wider ranges 
> were being made lower priority to be matched last.

That would make sense.

> In terms of overloading the get count call, that probably would be the 
> best route in terms of changing rule manager behavior.  The only thing I 
> am having a hard time seeing is how the rule manager would be able to 
> distinguish between low priority and high priority filter rules, or is 
> this something that new keywords would be added to the parser for?

Right, there would have to be keywords to specify that.

> I just put out version 6 of the patches.  Essentially I have reduced the 
> size of the rule manager to being used only on insertion without any 
> rule location specified.  The one thing to keep in mind with this rule 
> manager is that the rule at table size - 1 is always going to be the 
> lowest priority rule.  So if it was reserved for unspecified rules it 
> would be easy to use something like that to achieve an "auto-select" 
> location that the driver could then reassign as rules were added to it.

I don't think any location value within the physical table size should
select this special behaviour.  The special location values for
auto-select (with whatever priority) should be distinct from all the
physical location values.

I still need to review your patches but it sounds like they will be
ready to apply.

Ben.

-- 
Ben Hutchings, Senior Software Engineer, Solarflare
Not speaking for my employer; that's the marketing department's job.
They asked us to note that Solarflare product names are trademarked.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html