linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next 1/2] net: marvell: Implement TC flower offload

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]

Message-ID: <20210616130701.e4k2izlthmj5j6yc@skbuf>
Date:   Wed, 16 Jun 2021 16:07:01 +0300
From:   Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>
To:     Vadym Kochan <vadym.kochan@...ision.eu>
Cc:     "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
        Taras Chornyi <tchornyi@...vell.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Mickey Rachamim <mickeyr@...vell.com>,
        Serhiy Boiko <serhiy.boiko@...ision.eu>,
        Volodymyr Mytnyk <vmytnyk@...vell.com>,
        Vadym Kochan <vkochan@...vell.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/2] net: marvell: Implement TC flower offload

On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 04:04:24PM +0300, Vadym Kochan wrote:
> Hi Vladimir,
> 
> On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 03:54:53AM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 03:54:43PM +0300, Vadym Kochan wrote:
> > > +static int prestera_port_set_features(struct net_device *dev,
> > > +				      netdev_features_t features)
> > > +{
> > > +	netdev_features_t oper_features = dev->features;
> > > +	int err;
> > > +
> > > +	err = prestera_port_handle_feature(dev, features, NETIF_F_HW_TC,
> > > +					   prestera_port_feature_hw_tc);
> > 
> > Why do you even make NETIF_F_HW_TC able to be toggled and not just fixed
> > to "on" in dev->features? If I understand correctly, you could then delete
> > a bunch of refcounting code whose only purpose is to allow that feature
> > to be disabled per port.
> > 
> 
> The only case where it can be used is when user want to disable TC
> offloading and apply set of rules w/o skip_hw.
> 
> So you think it is OK to not having an ability to disable offloading at
> all ?

Because adding "skip_hw" is already possible per filter in the first
place, I don't think that this feature justifies the added complexity, no.