netdev - Re: [patch net-next 2/4] net: sched: move the can_offload check from binding phase to rule insertion phase

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:   Thu, 26 Oct 2017 08:07:48 +0200
From:   Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
To:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, jhs@...atatu.com, xiyou.wangcong@...il.com,
        mlxsw@...lanox.com, andrew@...n.ch,
        vivien.didelot@...oirfairelinux.com, f.fainelli@...il.com,
        michael.chan@...adcom.com, ganeshgr@...lsio.com,
        jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com, saeedm@...lanox.com,
        matanb@...lanox.com, leonro@...lanox.com, idosch@...lanox.com,
        jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com, simon.horman@...ronome.com,
        pieter.jansenvanvuuren@...ronome.com, john.hurley@...ronome.com,
        alexander.h.duyck@...el.com
Subject: Re: [patch net-next 2/4] net: sched: move the can_offload check from
 binding phase to rule insertion phase

Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 03:01:31AM CEST, davem@...emloft.net wrote:
>From: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
>Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2017 16:34:58 +0200
>
>> From: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...lanox.com>
>> 
>> This restores the original behaviour before the block callbacks were
>> introduced. Allow the drivers to do binding of block always, no matter
>> if the NETIF_F_HW_TC feature is on or off. Move the check to the block
>> callback which is called for rule insertion.
>> 
>> Reported-by: Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@...il.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...lanox.com>
>
>I agree with Jakub's feedback, if every callback has to make this check
>why not just do it in the core where the callback is invoked?

We cannot add it to the core. The idea of the block callbacks is to get
independent of the "dev". For the block sharing, driver registers one
block callback for multiple devs. Core has no access to "dev".