linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next v2 0/2] flow_offload: add tc police parameters

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]

Message-ID: <5e9a4e05-8501-4d21-c8b9-91c992c109f0@nvidia.com>
Date:   Thu, 17 Feb 2022 13:52:47 +0200
From:   Roi Dayan <roid@...dia.com>
To:     Simon Horman <simon.horman@...igine.com>,
        Jianbo Liu <jianbol@...dia.com>
CC:     <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org>, <olteanv@...il.com>,
        <andrew@...n.ch>, <vivien.didelot@...il.com>,
        <f.fainelli@...il.com>, <davem@...emloft.net>, <kuba@...nel.org>,
        <rajur@...lsio.com>, <claudiu.manoil@....com>,
        <sgoutham@...vell.com>, <gakula@...vell.com>,
        <sbhatta@...vell.com>, <hkelam@...vell.com>, <saeedm@...dia.com>,
        <leon@...nel.org>, <idosch@...dia.com>, <petrm@...dia.com>,
        <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>, <UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com>,
        <jhs@...atatu.com>, <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>, <jiri@...nulli.us>,
        <baowen.zheng@...igine.com>, <louis.peens@...ronome.com>,
        <peng.zhang@...igine.com>, <oss-drivers@...igine.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 0/2] flow_offload: add tc police parameters



On 2022-02-17 1:34 PM, Simon Horman wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 17, 2022 at 08:28:01AM +0000, Jianbo Liu wrote:
>> As a preparation for more advanced police offload in mlx5 (e.g.,
>> jumping to another chain when bandwidth is not exceeded), extend the
>> flow offload API with more tc-police parameters. Adjust existing
>> drivers to reject unsupported configurations.
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I have a concern that
> a) patch 1 introduces a facility that may break existing drivers; and
> b) patch 2 then fixes this
> 
> I'd slightly prefer if the series was rearranged to avoid this problem.
> 
> ...

Hi Simon,

It can't be rearranged as patch 2 can't compile without patch 1.
Patch 1 only adds more information passing to the driver.

The drivers functionality doesn't change. drivers today ignore
police information, like actions, and still being ignored after patch 1.

patch 2 updates the drivers to use that information instead of
ignoring it. so it fixes the drivers that without patch 1 can't be
fixed.

Thanks,
Roi