linux-kernel - Re: [net-next Patch v7 4/6] octeontx2-pf: Refactor schedular queue alloc/free calls

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <d01e3e47-9514-f84f-2497-30dcfda6c825@intel.com>
Date:   Wed, 12 Apr 2023 16:10:52 -0700
From:   Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@...el.com>
To:     Hariprasad Kelam <hkelam@...vell.com>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
CC:     <kuba@...nel.org>, <davem@...emloft.net>,
        <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>, <andrew@...n.ch>,
        <sgoutham@...vell.com>, <lcherian@...vell.com>,
        <gakula@...vell.com>, <jerinj@...vell.com>, <sbhatta@...vell.com>,
        <naveenm@...vell.com>, <edumazet@...gle.com>, <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        <jhs@...atatu.com>, <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>, <jiri@...nulli.us>,
        <maxtram95@...il.com>, <corbet@....net>
Subject: Re: [net-next Patch v7 4/6] octeontx2-pf: Refactor schedular queue
 alloc/free calls



On 4/10/2023 12:29 AM, Hariprasad Kelam wrote:
> Multiple transmit scheduler queues can be configured at different
> levels to support traffic shaping and scheduling. But on txschq free
> requests, the transmit schedular config in hardware is not getting
> reset. This patch adds support to reset the stale config.
> 
> The txschq alloc response handler updates the default txschq
> array which is used to configure the transmit packet path from
> SMQ to TL2 levels. However, for new features such as QoS offload
> that requires it's own txschq queues, this handler is still
> invoked and results in undefined behavior. The code now handles
> txschq response in the mbox caller function.

This paragraph is a bit hard to parse. I assume you mean that the
behavior used to be undefined? This could use a little bit of rephrasing.

The code it self seems ok.