netdev - Re: [net-next PATCH v3 1/3] net: sched: consolidate offload decision in 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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Date:	Fri, 26 Feb 2016 09:39:47 -0800
From:	Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
To:	John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>
Cc:	Jiří Pírko <jiri@...nulli.us>,
	Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
	simon.horman@...ronome.com,
	Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>
Subject: Re: [net-next PATCH v3 1/3] net: sched: consolidate offload decision
 in cls_u32

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 7:53 AM, John Fastabend
<john.fastabend@...il.com> wrote:
> The offload decision was originally very basic and tied to if the dev
> implemented the appropriate ndo op hook. The next step is to allow
> the user to more flexibly define if any paticular rule should be
> offloaded or not. In order to have this logic in one function lift
> the current check into a helper routine tc_should_offload().
>
> Signed-off-by: John Fastabend <john.r.fastabend@...el.com>
> ---
>  include/net/pkt_cls.h |    5 +++++
>  net/sched/cls_u32.c   |    8 ++++----
>  2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/net/pkt_cls.h b/include/net/pkt_cls.h
> index 2121df5..e64d20b 100644
> --- a/include/net/pkt_cls.h
> +++ b/include/net/pkt_cls.h
> @@ -392,4 +392,9 @@ struct tc_cls_u32_offload {
>         };
>  };
>
> +static inline bool tc_should_offload(struct net_device *dev)
> +{
> +       return dev->netdev_ops->ndo_setup_tc;
> +}
> +

These should be protected by CONFIG_NET_CLS_U32, no?