linux-kernel - Re: [net-next PATCH V2] octeontx2-af: Install TC filter rules in hardware based on priority

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: <20230717054725.GB9461@unreal>
Date:   Mon, 17 Jul 2023 08:47:25 +0300
From:   Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>
To:     Suman Ghosh <sumang@...vell.com>
Cc:     sgoutham@...vell.com, gakula@...vell.com, sbhatta@...vell.com,
        hkelam@...vell.com, davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com,
        kuba@...nel.org, pabeni@...hat.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [net-next PATCH V2] octeontx2-af: Install TC filter rules in
 hardware based on priority

On Sun, Jul 16, 2023 at 11:54:42PM +0530, Suman Ghosh wrote:
> As of today, hardware does not support installing tc filter
> rules based on priority. This patch fixes the issue and install
> the hardware rules based on priority. The final hardware rules
> will not be dependent on rule installation order, it will be strictly
> priority based, same as software.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Suman Ghosh <sumang@...vell.com>
> ---
> Changes since v1:
> - Rebased the patch on top of current 'main' branch
> 
>  .../net/ethernet/marvell/octeontx2/af/mbox.h  |   9 +-
>  .../marvell/octeontx2/af/rvu_npc_fs.c         |   9 +-
>  .../marvell/octeontx2/af/rvu_switch.c         |   6 +-
>  .../marvell/octeontx2/nic/otx2_common.h       |  11 +-
>  .../marvell/octeontx2/nic/otx2_devlink.c      |   1 -
>  .../marvell/octeontx2/nic/otx2_ethtool.c      |   1 +
>  .../marvell/octeontx2/nic/otx2_flows.c        |   2 +
>  .../ethernet/marvell/octeontx2/nic/otx2_tc.c  | 313 +++++++++++++-----
>  8 files changed, 248 insertions(+), 104 deletions(-)

<...>

> +static void otx2_tc_del_from_flow_list(struct otx2_flow_config *flow_cfg,
> +				       struct otx2_tc_flow *node)
>  {
> +	struct otx2_tc_flow *tmp;
> +	struct list_head *pos, *n;

Please declared variables in rversed Christmas tree, in all places, thanks.

> +
> +	list_for_each_safe(pos, n, &flow_cfg->flow_list_tc) {
> +		tmp = list_entry(pos, struct otx2_tc_flow, list);
> +		if (node == tmp) {
> +			list_del(&node->list);
> +			return;
> +		}
> +	}
> +}
> +
> +static int otx2_tc_add_to_flow_list(struct otx2_flow_config *flow_cfg,
> +				    struct otx2_tc_flow *node)
> +{
> +	struct otx2_tc_flow *tmp;
> +	struct list_head *pos, *n;
> +	int index = 0;

Ditto.

> +

<...>

> +static int otx2_del_mcam_flow_entry(struct otx2_nic *nic, u16 entry, u16 *cntr_val)
> +{
> +	struct npc_delete_flow_rsp __maybe_unused *rsp;

Why __maybe_unused? This keyword is usually used when in some CONFIG_*
option, it won't be used. It is not the case here.

>  	struct npc_delete_flow_req *req;
>  	int err;

<...>

> +	ntuple = !!(nic->netdev->features & NETIF_F_NTUPLE);

No need in !! for bool variables.

Thanks