linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net v3 1/1] i40e: xsk: advance next_to

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: <aRgysZAaRwNSsMY3@lima-default>
Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2025 18:58:41 +1100
From: Alessandro Decina <alessandro.d@...il.com>
To: Maciej Fijalkowski <maciej.fijalkowski@...el.com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
	Andrew Lunn <andrew+netdev@...n.ch>,
	Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
	Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
	Jesper Dangaard Brouer <hawk@...nel.org>,
	John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
	Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
	Przemek Kitszel <przemyslaw.kitszel@...el.com>,
	Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...ichev.me>,
	Tirthendu Sarkar <tirthendu.sarkar@...el.com>,
	Tony Nguyen <anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com>, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
	intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net v3 1/1] i40e: xsk: advance next_to_clean on status
 descriptors

On Fri, Nov 14, 2025 at 02:01:14PM +0100, Maciej Fijalkowski wrote:
> Woah, that's not what I had on mind...I meant to pull whole block that
> takes care of FDIR descriptors onto common function. That logic should be
> shared between normal Rx and ZC Rx. The only different action we need to
> take is how we release the buffer.
> 
> Could you try pulling whole i40e_rx_is_programming_status() branch onto
> function within i40e_txrx_common.h and see how much of a work would it
> take to have this as a common function?

Just before I send another rev, you mean something like this? 
https://github.com/alessandrod/linux/commit/a6fa91d5b5d1cc283a2f1faa378085c44bda8b4a

My rationale for i40e_inc_ntp_ntc was that _that_ is where the bug lies:
letting ntp and ntc get out of sync. By introducing a function that
forces you to _have_ to think about ntc and explicitly pass NULL if you
don't want to sync it, bugs like this become less easy to introduce.

That said I don't mind either way! Let me know if you want me to send v4
with the i40e_clean_programming_status() change.

Ciao,
Alessandro