linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next v5 1/2] dt-bindings: net: snps,dwmac: Tx queues with coe

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]

Date:   Thu, 24 Aug 2023 01:10:04 +0800
From:   Rohan G Thomas <rohan.g.thomas@...el.com>
To:     fancer.lancer@...il.com
Cc:     alexandre.torgue@...s.st.com, conor+dt@...nel.org,
        conor.dooley@...rochip.com, davem@...emloft.net,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, edumazet@...gle.com,
        joabreu@...opsys.com, krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org,
        kuba@...nel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-stm32@...md-mailman.stormreply.com,
        mcoquelin.stm32@...il.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        pabeni@...hat.com, peppe.cavallaro@...com, robh+dt@...nel.org,
        rohan.g.thomas@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v5 1/2] dt-bindings: net: snps,dwmac: Tx queues with coe

>On Tue, Aug 22, 2023 at 05:15:25PM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
>> On Sat, 19 Aug 2023 10:31:31 +0800 Rohan G Thomas wrote:
>> > +      snps,tx-queues-with-coe:
>> > +        $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/uint32
>> > +        description: number of TX queues that support TX checksum offloading
>> 
>
>> Is it going to be obvious that if not present all queues support
>> checksum offload? I think we should document the default.
>
>This question is debatable:
>1. By default the DW xGMAC and DW QoS Eth IP-cores are
>synthesized with only the very first Tx queue having Tx COE enabled.
>2. If TSO is disabled then the Tx COE can be individually enabled
>for each queue available on DW QoS Eth controller and for the very
>first N queues on DW xGMAC controller.
>3. If TSO is enabled then the Tx COE will be automatically and always
>enabled for as many first queues as there are TSO-capable
>DMA-channels.
>4. At the current state the STMMAC driver assumes that all Tx Queues
>support Tx COE.
>
>The entry 4 can't be changed since we'll risk to catch regressions on
>the platforms with no property specified. On the other hand it partly
>contradicts to the rest of the entries. I don't know what would be a
>correct way to specify the default value in this case. Most likely
>just keep the entry 4 and be done with it.
>
>BTW I just noticed that but the suggested "snps,tx-queues-with-coe"
>property semantic will only cover a DW XGMAC-part of the case 2. DW
>QoS Eth can be synthesized with Tx COE individually enabled for a
>particular queue if TSO is unavailable.

Hi Serge,

Didn't know about a different IP configuration supported by DW QoS Eth IP. If
this is the case, I think we can have a flag 'coe-unsupported' for any TX
queue subnode as below.

+          snps,coe-unsupported:
+            $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/flag
+            description:
+              TX checksum offload is unsupported by the TX queue. If TX checksum
+              offload is requested for a packet to be transmitted through this
+              TX queue then have a software fallback in the driver for checksum
+              calculation.

If this is okay, I can rework the patch based on this. Covers both DW QoS Eth IP
and DW XGMAC IP cases.

>
>-Serge(y)
>
>> -- 
>> pw-bot: cr

BR,
Rohan