linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next V2 11/11] net/mlx5e: Support ethtool tcp-data-split settings

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: <676de326-df44-45c4-8ca2-3d1a2758abf2@nvidia.com>
Date: Wed, 28 May 2025 08:10:46 +0300
From: Gal Pressman <gal@...dia.com>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Saeed Mahameed <saeed@...nel.org>
Cc: Tariq Toukan <tariqt@...dia.com>, "David S. Miller"
 <davem@...emloft.net>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
 Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Andrew Lunn <andrew+netdev@...n.ch>,
 Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...dia.com>, Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>,
 Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>,
 Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>, Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
 Jesper Dangaard Brouer <hawk@...nel.org>,
 John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 bpf@...r.kernel.org, Moshe Shemesh <moshe@...dia.com>,
 Mark Bloch <mbloch@...dia.com>, Cosmin Ratiu <cratiu@...dia.com>,
 Dragos Tatulea <dtatulea@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next V2 11/11] net/mlx5e: Support ethtool
 tcp-data-split settings

On 27/05/2025 19:10, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Thu, 22 May 2025 16:19:28 -0700 Saeed Mahameed wrote:
>>> Why are you modifying wanted_features? wanted_features is what
>>> *user space* wanted! You should probably operate on hw_features ?
>>> Tho, may be cleaner to return an error and an extack if the user
>>> tries to set HDS and GRO to conflicting values.
>>>  
>>
>> hw_features is hw capabilities, it doesn't mean on/off.. so no we can't
>> rely on that.
>>
>> To enable TCP_DATA_SPLIT we tie it to GRO_HW, so we enable GRO_HW when
>> TCP_DATA_SPLIT is set to on and vise-versa. I agree not the cleanest.. 
>> But it is good for user-visibility as you would see both ON if you query
>> from user, which is the actual state. This is the only way to set HW_GRO
>> to on by driver and not lose previous state when we turn the other bit
>> on/off.
> 
>    features = on
> hw_features = off
> 
> is how we indicate the feature is "on [fixed]"
> Tho, I'm not sure how much precedent there is for making things fixed
> at runtime.

Isn't this something that should be handled through fix_features?