| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20221130165443.ewjwm3z7nbwmktcv@skbuf>
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2022 18:54:43 +0200
From: Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>
To: Horatiu Vultur <horatiu.vultur@...rochip.com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, davem@...emloft.net,
edumazet@...gle.com, kuba@...nel.org, pabeni@...hat.com,
lars.povlsen@...rochip.com, Steen.Hegelund@...rochip.com,
daniel.machon@...rochip.com, richardcochran@...il.com,
UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 4/4] net: lan966x: Add ptp trap rules
Hello Horatiu,
On Wed, Nov 30, 2022 at 03:35:25PM +0100, Horatiu Vultur wrote:
> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/microchip/lan966x/lan966x_ptp.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/microchip/lan966x/lan966x_ptp.c
> index e5a2bbe064f8f..1f6614ee83169 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/microchip/lan966x/lan966x_ptp.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/microchip/lan966x/lan966x_ptp.c
> @@ -3,6 +3,8 @@
> #include <linux/ptp_classify.h>
>
> #include "lan966x_main.h"
> +#include "vcap_api.h"
> +#include "vcap_api_client.h"
>
> #define LAN966X_MAX_PTP_ID 512
>
> @@ -18,6 +20,17 @@
>
> #define TOD_ACC_PIN 0x7
>
> +/* This represents the base rule ID for the PTP rules that are added in the
> + * VCAP to trap frames to CPU. This number needs to be bigger than the maximum
> + * number of entries that can exist in the VCAP.
> + */
> +#define LAN966X_VCAP_PTP_RULE_ID 1000000
> +#define LAN966X_VCAP_L2_PTP_TRAP (LAN966X_VCAP_PTP_RULE_ID + 0)
> +#define LAN966X_VCAP_IPV4_EV_PTP_TRAP (LAN966X_VCAP_PTP_RULE_ID + 1)
> +#define LAN966X_VCAP_IPV4_GEN_PTP_TRAP (LAN966X_VCAP_PTP_RULE_ID + 2)
> +#define LAN966X_VCAP_IPV6_EV_PTP_TRAP (LAN966X_VCAP_PTP_RULE_ID + 3)
> +#define LAN966X_VCAP_IPV6_GEN_PTP_TRAP (LAN966X_VCAP_PTP_RULE_ID + 4)
> +
> enum {
> PTP_PIN_ACTION_IDLE = 0,
> PTP_PIN_ACTION_LOAD,
> @@ -35,19 +48,229 @@ static u64 lan966x_ptp_get_nominal_value(void)
> return 0x304d4873ecade305;
> }
>
> +static int lan966x_ptp_add_trap(struct lan966x_port *port,
> + int (*add_ptp_key)(struct vcap_rule *vrule,
> + struct lan966x_port*),
> + u32 rule_id,
> + u16 proto)
> +{
> + struct lan966x *lan966x = port->lan966x;
> + struct vcap_rule *vrule;
> + int err;
> +
> + vrule = vcap_get_rule(lan966x->vcap_ctrl, rule_id);
> + if (vrule) {
> + u32 value, mask;
> +
> + /* Just modify the ingress port mask and exit */
> + vcap_rule_get_key_u32(vrule, VCAP_KF_IF_IGR_PORT_MASK,
> + &value, &mask);
> + mask &= ~BIT(port->chip_port);
> + vcap_rule_mod_key_u32(vrule, VCAP_KF_IF_IGR_PORT_MASK,
> + value, mask);
> +
> + err = vcap_mod_rule(vrule);
> + goto free_rule;
> + }
> +
> + vrule = vcap_alloc_rule(lan966x->vcap_ctrl, port->dev,
> + LAN966X_VCAP_CID_IS2_L0,
> + VCAP_USER_PTP, 0, rule_id);
> + if (!vrule)
> + return -ENOMEM;
> + if (IS_ERR(vrule))
> + return PTR_ERR(vrule);
> +
> + err = add_ptp_key(vrule, port);
> + if (err)
> + goto free_rule;
> +
> + err = vcap_set_rule_set_actionset(vrule, VCAP_AFS_BASE_TYPE);
> + err |= vcap_rule_add_action_bit(vrule, VCAP_AF_CPU_COPY_ENA, VCAP_BIT_1);
> + err |= vcap_rule_add_action_u32(vrule, VCAP_AF_MASK_MODE, LAN966X_PMM_REPLACE);
> + err |= vcap_val_rule(vrule, proto);
> + if (err)
> + goto free_rule;
> +
> + err = vcap_add_rule(vrule);
> +
> +free_rule:
> + /* Free the local copy of the rule */
> + vcap_free_rule(vrule);
> + return err;
> +}
> +
> +static int lan966x_ptp_del_trap(struct lan966x_port *port,
> + u32 rule_id)
> +{
> + struct lan966x *lan966x = port->lan966x;
> + struct vcap_rule *vrule;
> + u32 value, mask;
> + int err;
> +
> + vrule = vcap_get_rule(lan966x->vcap_ctrl, rule_id);
> + if (!vrule)
> + return -EEXIST;
> +
> + vcap_rule_get_key_u32(vrule, VCAP_KF_IF_IGR_PORT_MASK, &value, &mask);
> + mask |= BIT(port->chip_port);
Does the VCAP API not abstract away the negative mask representation of
the IGR_PORT_MASK field? I guess someone will stumble upon this in the
future and introduce a bug. In ocelot, struct ocelot_vcap_filter ::
ingress_port_mask ended being used quite in a wide variety of places.
It would be quite messy, unintuitive and tiring to treat it like a
reverse port mask everywhere it is used. In ocelot_vcap.c, it is just
reversed in the vcap_key_set() call.
> +
> + /* No other port requires this trap, so it is safe to remove it */
> + if (mask == GENMASK(lan966x->num_phys_ports, 0)) {
> + err = vcap_del_rule(lan966x->vcap_ctrl, port->dev, rule_id);
> + goto free_rule;
> + }
> +
> + vcap_rule_mod_key_u32(vrule, VCAP_KF_IF_IGR_PORT_MASK, value, mask);
> + err = vcap_mod_rule(vrule);
> +
> +free_rule:
> + vcap_free_rule(vrule);
> + return err;
> +}
> +
> +static int lan966x_ptp_add_l2_key(struct vcap_rule *vrule,
> + struct lan966x_port *port)
> +{
> + return vcap_rule_add_key_u32(vrule, VCAP_KF_ETYPE, ETH_P_1588, ~0);
> +}
> +
> +static int lan966x_ptp_add_ip_event_key(struct vcap_rule *vrule,
> + struct lan966x_port *port)
> +{
> + return vcap_rule_add_key_u32(vrule, VCAP_KF_L4_DPORT, 319, ~0) ||
s/319/PTP_EV_PORT/
> + vcap_rule_add_key_bit(vrule, VCAP_KF_TCP_IS, VCAP_BIT_0);
> +}
> +
> +static int lan966x_ptp_add_ip_general_key(struct vcap_rule *vrule,
> + struct lan966x_port *port)
> +{
> + return vcap_rule_add_key_u32(vrule, VCAP_KF_L4_DPORT, 320, ~0) ||
s/320/PTP_GEN_PORT/
> + vcap_rule_add_key_bit(vrule, VCAP_KF_TCP_IS, VCAP_BIT_0);
> +}
> +
> +static int lan966x_ptp_add_l2_rule(struct lan966x_port *port)
> +{
> + return lan966x_ptp_add_trap(port, lan966x_ptp_add_l2_key,
> + LAN966X_VCAP_L2_PTP_TRAP, ETH_P_ALL);
> +}
> +
> +static int lan966x_ptp_add_ipv4_rules(struct lan966x_port *port)
> +{
> + int err;
> +
> + err = lan966x_ptp_add_trap(port, lan966x_ptp_add_ip_event_key,
> + LAN966X_VCAP_IPV4_EV_PTP_TRAP, ETH_P_IP);
> + if (err)
> + return err;
> +
> + err = lan966x_ptp_add_trap(port, lan966x_ptp_add_ip_general_key,
> + LAN966X_VCAP_IPV4_GEN_PTP_TRAP, ETH_P_IP);
> + if (err)
> + lan966x_ptp_del_trap(port, LAN966X_VCAP_IPV4_EV_PTP_TRAP);
> +
> + return err;
> +}
There's a comical amount of code duplication between this and ocelot_ptp.c,
save for the fact that it was written by different people. Is there any
possibility to reuse code with ocelot?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists