linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 net-next 1/2] octeontx2-af: Knobs for NPC default rule counters

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]

Message-ID: <20240917043826.GA720400@hyd1403.caveonetworks.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2024 10:08:26 +0530
From: Linu Cherian <lcherian@...vell.com>
To: Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>
CC: <davem@...emloft.net>, <sgoutham@...vell.com>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <gakula@...vell.com>,
        <hkelam@...vell.com>, <sbhatta@...vell.com>, <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        <kuba@...nel.org>, <pabeni@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 net-next 1/2] octeontx2-af: Knobs for NPC default rule
 counters

Hi Simon,

On 2024-09-14 at 13:43:17, Simon Horman (horms@...nel.org) wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 12, 2024 at 09:44:49PM +0530, Linu Cherian wrote:
> > Add devlink knobs to enable/disable counters on NPC
> > default rule entries.
> > 
> > Introduce lowlevel variant of rvu_mcam_remove/add_counter_from/to_rule
> > for better code reuse, which assumes necessary locks are taken at
> > higher level.
> > 
> > Sample command to enable default rule counters:
> > devlink dev param set <dev> name npc_def_rule_cntr value true cmode runtime
> > 
> > Sample command to read the counter:
> > cat /sys/kernel/debug/cn10k/npc/mcam_rules
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Linu Cherian <lcherian@...vell.com>
> > ---
> > Changelog from v1:
> > Removed wrong mutex_unlock invocations.
> 
> Hi Linu,
> 
> This patch seems to be doing two things:
> 
> 1) Refactoring some functions to have locking and non-locking variants.
>    By LoC this is appears the bulk of the code changed in this patch.
>    It also appears to be straightforward.
> 
> 2) Adding devlink knobs
> 
>    As this is a user-facing change it probably requires a deeper review
>    than 1)
> 
> I would suggest, that for review, it would be very nice to split
> 1) and 2) into separate patches. Maybe including a note in the patch
> for 1) that the refactor will be used in the following patch for 2).
>

Ack. Will split into two while reposting.

> As for the code changes themselves, I did look over them,
> and I didn't see any problems.


Linu Cherian.