linux-kernel - RE: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH iwl-next, v1 0/3] Add Default Rx Queue Setting for igc driver

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <PH0PR11MB5830C9CAFB74EE045B8FC1A7D8B22@PH0PR11MB5830.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2024 07:09:05 +0000
From: "Song, Yoong Siang" <yoong.siang.song@...el.com>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, "Keller, Jacob E"
	<jacob.e.keller@...el.com>
CC: "Neftin, Sasha" <sasha.neftin@...el.com>, Brett Creeley
	<brett.creeley@....com>, "linux-doc@...r.kernel.org"
	<linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>, "Eric
 Dumazet" <edumazet@...gle.com>, "Nguyen, Anthony L"
	<anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com>, "Blanco Alcaine, Hector"
	<hector.blanco.alcaine@...el.com>, Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
	Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, "Gomes, Vinicius"
	<vinicius.gomes@...el.com>, "Kitszel, Przemyslaw"
	<przemyslaw.kitszel@...el.com>, John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
	Shinas Rasheed <srasheed@...vell.com>, "intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org"
	<intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, "Tian,
 Kevin" <kevin.tian@...el.com>, Jesper Dangaard Brouer <hawk@...nel.org>,
	Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>, "netdev@...r.kernel.org"
	<netdev@...r.kernel.org>, "Hay, Joshua A" <joshua.a.hay@...el.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"bpf@...r.kernel.org" <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, "David S . Miller"
	<davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: RE: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH iwl-next, v1 0/3] Add Default Rx Queue
 Setting for igc driver

On Thursday, August 1, 2024 7:53 AM, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org> wrote:
>On Wed, 31 Jul 2024 09:41:16 -0700 Jacob Keller wrote:
>> In this case, (I haven't dug into the actual patches or code), I suspect
>> the driver will need to validate the location values when adding rules
>> to ensure that all rules which don't use the default queue have higher
>> priority than the wild card rule. The request to add a filter should
>> reject the rule in the case where a default queue rule was added with a
>> higher priority location.
>
>Maybe I shouldn't say it aloud but picking a "known" location for such
>a wildcard rule wouldn't be the worst thing. Obviously better if the
>driver just understand ordering!

Thanks Jakub Kicinski and Jacob Keller for the suggestions.
I believe that it is a good idea to validate and ensure that the
default queue rule is located at the lowest priority location (loc 63).
I will go for this direction on my v2 submission.