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 20:24:17 -0800
From:	John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>
To:	Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...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 16-02-26 09:39 AM, Cong Wang wrote:
> 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?
> 

Its not necessary it is a completely general function and I only
lifted it out of cls_u32 so that the cls_flower classifier could
also use it.

I don't see the need off-hand to have it wrapped in an ORd ifdef
statement where its (CONFIG_NET_CLS_U32 | CONFIG_NET_CLS_X ...).
Any particular reason you were thnking it should be wrapped in ifdefs?

Thanks for taking a look at the patches.

.John