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  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:   Thu, 30 May 2019 12:52:26 -0700 (PDT)
From:   David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:     jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com
Cc:     horatiu.vultur@...rochip.com, alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com,
        UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com, robh+dt@...nel.org,
        mark.rutland@....com, ralf@...ux-mips.org, paul.burton@...s.com,
        jhogan@...nel.org, linux-mips@...r.kernel.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 2/2] net: mscc: ocelot: Hardware ofload for
 tc flower filter

From: Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>
Date: Wed, 29 May 2019 15:18:44 -0700

> On Wed, 29 May 2019 12:26:20 +0200, Horatiu Vultur wrote:
>> +static int ocelot_flower_replace(struct tc_cls_flower_offload *f,
>> +				 struct ocelot_port_block *port_block)
>> +{
>> +	struct ocelot_ace_rule *rule;
>> +	int ret;
>> +
>> +	if (port_block->port->tc.block_shared)
>> +		return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> 
> FWIW since you only support TRAP and DROP actions here (AFAICT) you
> should actually be okay with shared blocks.  The problems with shared
> blocks start when the action is stateful (like act_police), because we
> can't share that state between devices.  But for most actions which just
> maintain statistics, it's fine to allow shared blocks.  HTH

Please update to remove this test Horatiu, thanks.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists