linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next v4 8/9] net: ethernet: ti: am65-cpsw: add network flow classification support

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: <20250516182902.5a5bfd98@kernel.org>
Date: Fri, 16 May 2025 18:29:02 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Roger Quadros <rogerq@...nel.org>
Cc: Siddharth Vadapalli <s-vadapalli@...com>, Andrew Lunn
 <andrew+netdev@...n.ch>, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric
 Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Russell
 King <linux@...linux.org.uk>, danishanwar@...com, srk@...com,
 linux-omap@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v4 8/9] net: ethernet: ti: am65-cpsw: add
 network flow classification support

On Wed, 14 May 2025 15:04:28 +0300 Roger Quadros wrote:
> The TRM doesn't mention anything about order of evaluation of the
> classifier rules however it does mention in [1]
> "if multiple classifier matches occur, the highest match
> with thread enable bit set will be used."

So we're not sure how to maintain the user requested ordering?
Am I reading this correctly? If so then ..

> +	if (fs->location == RX_CLS_LOC_ANY ||

.. why are we rejecting LOC_ANY? 

I'd think that, in fact, LOC_ANY should be the only loc we can support.
Note that ethtool hides the location logic on the CLI, if user doesn't
request a location and driver reports RX_CLS_LOC_SPECIAL ethtool will
set the location to LOC_ANY.

> +	    fs->location >= port->rxnfc_max)
> +		return -EINVAL;