netdev - Re: [net-next PATCH v3 1/3] net: sched: consolidate offload decision in cls

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

Date:	Mon, 29 Feb 2016 19:58:12 +0100
From:	Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
To:	John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>
Cc:	Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
	Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
	simon.horman@...ronome.com,
	Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>
Subject: Re: [net-next PATCH v3 1/3] net: sched: consolidate offload decision
 in cls_u32

Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 07:40:53PM CET, john.fastabend@...il.com wrote:
>On 16-02-27 08:28 PM, Cong Wang wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 8:24 PM, John Fastabend
>> <john.fastabend@...il.com> wrote:
>>> On 16-02-26 09:39 AM, Cong Wang wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 7:53 AM, John Fastabend
>>>> <john.fastabend@...il.com> wrote:
>>>>> diff --git a/include/net/pkt_cls.h b/include/net/pkt_cls.h
>>>>> index 2121df5..e64d20b 100644
>>>>> --- a/include/net/pkt_cls.h
>>>>> +++ b/include/net/pkt_cls.h
>>>>> @@ -392,4 +392,9 @@ struct tc_cls_u32_offload {
>>>>>         };
>>>>>  };
>>>>>
>>>>> +static inline bool tc_should_offload(struct net_device *dev)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> +       return dev->netdev_ops->ndo_setup_tc;
>>>>> +}
>>>>> +
>>>>
>>>> These should be protected by CONFIG_NET_CLS_U32, no?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Its not necessary it is a completely general function and I only
>>> lifted it out of cls_u32 so that the cls_flower classifier could
>>> also use it.
>>>
>>> I don't see the need off-hand to have it wrapped in an ORd ifdef
>>> statement where its (CONFIG_NET_CLS_U32 | CONFIG_NET_CLS_X ...).
>>> Any particular reason you were thnking it should be wrapped in ifdefs?
>>>
>> 
>> Not a big deal.
>> 
>> I just feel these don't need to compile when I have CONFIG_NET_CLS_U32=n.
>> 
>> Thanks.
>> 
>
>Well because this is 'static inline' gcc should just remove it
>if it is not used. Assuming non-ancient gcc and normal compile
>flags, e.g. you are not including -fkeep-inline-functions or
>something.
>
>So just to keep it readable I would prefer to just leave it
>as is.

Definitelly. cls_flower will use it in very near future. Making it
dependent on CONFIG_NET_CLS_U32 makes 0 sense to me.