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]

Message-ID: <CAM_iQpWMKWWqtrmPEQZGfDwMZoRq4dvCmirc850tmhbRGT1LNQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Sat, 27 Feb 2016 20:28:46 -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 8:24 PM, John Fastabend
<john.fastabend@...il.com> wrote:
> 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:
>>> 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?
>

Not a big deal.

I just feel these don't need to compile when I have CONFIG_NET_CLS_U32=n.

Thanks.