netdev - Re: [net-next PATCH v3 3/8] net: sched: add cls

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20160219033712.GA5799@vergenet.net>
Date:	Fri, 19 Feb 2016 12:37:15 +0900
From:	Simon Horman <simon.horman@...ronome.com>
To:	"Amir Vadai\"" <amir@...ai.me>
Cc:	John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
	Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>, jiri@...nulli.us,
	davem@...emloft.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com
Subject: Re: [net-next PATCH v3 3/8] net: sched: add cls_u32 offload hooks
 for netdevs

On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 11:23:35AM +0200, Amir Vadai" wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 03:07:23PM -0800, John Fastabend wrote:
> > [...]
> > 
> > >>
> > >>> +static void u32_replace_hw_hnode(struct tcf_proto *tp, struct
> > >>> tc_u_hnode *h)
> > >>> +{
> > >>> +    struct net_device *dev = tp->q->dev_queue->dev;
> > >>> +    struct tc_cls_u32_offload u32_offload = {0};
> > >>> +    struct tc_to_netdev offload;
> > >>> +
> > >>> +    offload.type = TC_SETUP_CLSU32;
> > >>> +    offload.cls_u32 = &u32_offload;
> > >>> +
> > >>> +    if (dev->netdev_ops->ndo_setup_tc) {
> > >>> +        offload.cls_u32->command = TC_CLSU32_NEW_HNODE;
> > >>
> > >> TC_CLSU32_REPLACE_HNODE?
> > >>
> > > 
> > > Yep I made this change and will send out v4.
> > > 
> > > [...]
> > > 
> > >>
> > 
> > Actually thinking about this a bit more I wrote this thinking
> > that there existed some hardware that actually cared if it was
> > a new rule or an existing rule. For me it doesn't matter I do
> > the same thing in the new/replace cases I just write into the
> > slot on the hardware table and if it happens to have something
> > in it well its overwritten e.g. "replaced". This works because
> > the cls_u32 layer protects us from doing something unexpected.
> > 
> > I'm wondering (mostly asking the mlx folks) is there hardware
> > out there that cares to make this distinction between new and
> > replace? Otherwise I can just drop new and always use replace.
> > Or vice versa which is the case in its current form.
> I don't see a need for such a distinction in mlx hardware.

FWIW, I think it is unlikely such a distinction would
be needed for Netronome hardware.