netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next V2 09/12] net/mlx5_core: Make ipv4/ipv6 location more clear

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: <CAJ3xEMjVeaGw=E3c0SWLY9z-wA-YcTFJVaTMoty+578Otzhf+A@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 11 Jan 2016 15:18:19 +0200
From:	Or Gerlitz <gerlitz.or@...il.com>
To:	David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com>
Cc:	Or Gerlitz <ogerlitz@...lanox.com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Doug Ledford <dledford@...hat.com>,
	Matan Barak <matanb@...lanox.com>,
	Maor Gottlieb <maorg@...lanox.com>,
	Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...lanox.com>,
	Eran Ben Elisha <eranbe@...lanox.com>,
	Moni Shoua <monis@...lanox.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next V2 09/12] net/mlx5_core: Make ipv4/ipv6 location
 more clear

On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 2:17 PM, David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com> wrote:
> From: Or Gerlitz
>> Sent: 10 January 2016 08:40
>> Change the mlx5 firmware interface header to make it
>> more clear which bytes should be used by IPv4 or
>> IPv6 addresses.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Maor Gottlieb <maorg@...lanox.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Moni Shoua <monis@...lanox.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Matan Barak <matanb@...lanox.com>
>> ---
>>  include/linux/mlx5/mlx5_ifc.h | 20 ++++++++++++++++++--
>>  1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/include/linux/mlx5/mlx5_ifc.h b/include/linux/mlx5/mlx5_ifc.h
>> index 7f16695..68d73f8 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/mlx5/mlx5_ifc.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/mlx5/mlx5_ifc.h
>> @@ -298,6 +298,22 @@ struct mlx5_ifc_odp_per_transport_service_cap_bits {
>>       u8         reserved_1[0x1a];
>>  };
>>
>> +struct mlx5_ifc_ipv4_layout_bits {
>> +     u8         reserved_0[0x60];
>> +
>> +     u8         ipv4[0x20];
>> +};
>> +
>> +struct mlx5_ifc_ipv6_layout_bits {
>> +     u8         ipv6[16][0x8];
>> +};
>> +
>> +union mlx5_ifc_ipv6_layout_ipv4_layout_auto_bits {
>> +     struct mlx5_ifc_ipv6_layout_bits ipv6_layout;
>> +     struct mlx5_ifc_ipv4_layout_bits ipv4_layout;
>> +     u8         reserved_0[0x80];
>> +};
>
> I like the way these names just roll off the tongue :-)
>
>> +
>>  struct mlx5_ifc_fte_match_set_lyr_2_4_bits {
>>       u8         smac_47_16[0x20];
>>
>> @@ -328,9 +344,9 @@ struct mlx5_ifc_fte_match_set_lyr_2_4_bits {
>>       u8         udp_sport[0x10];
>>       u8         udp_dport[0x10];
>>
>> -     u8         src_ip[4][0x20];
>> +     union mlx5_ifc_ipv6_layout_ipv4_layout_auto_bits src_ipv4_src_ipv6;
>>
>> -     u8         dst_ip[4][0x20];
>> +     union mlx5_ifc_ipv6_layout_ipv4_layout_auto_bits dst_ipv4_dst_ipv6;
>>  };
>
> Have you considered just how long the line of code to access these
> fields will be?
> It might be better to do (I think it compiles):
>         union {
>                 u8      src_ipv6[16][0x8];
>                 struct {
>                         u8      src_ipv4_pad[0x60];
>                         u8      src_ipv4[0x20];
>                 }
>         };
> Repeated for the 'dst' addresses.
> Then fixup the definition of src_ipv4[] (and probably src_ipv6[]) to
> be much clearer about how the addresses are supplied.

David,

As Matan commented, these is an auto generated header, done by a tool
that runs over the firmware spec.

Indeed, the names here are sort of odd / too long and Matan/Maor will
provide the feedback into the internal chain (tool/spec, depends where
the problem is) - however, we would prefer to address that as
incremental fix over the code after the series is applied, hope this
makes sense to you.

Or.