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_iQpVP-HbhN=p0xq=wBvjYFG8rF9RCJr=r1-gznMh0ZfGCqA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 29 Feb 2016 13:25:14 -0800
From:	Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
To:	Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
Cc:	John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
	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 Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 10:58 AM, Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us> wrote:
> Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 07:40:53PM CET, john.fastabend@...il.com wrote:
>>On 16-02-27 08:28 PM, Cong Wang wrote:
>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>>Well because this is 'static inline' gcc should just remove it
>>if it is not used. Assuming non-ancient gcc and normal compile
>>flags, e.g. you are not including -fkeep-inline-functions or
>>something.
>>
>>So just to keep it readable I would prefer to just leave it
>>as is.
>
> Definitelly. cls_flower will use it in very near future. Making it
> dependent on CONFIG_NET_CLS_U32 makes 0 sense to me.

Oh, why then do you have u32 in the struct name tc_cls_u32_offload?

(Note that in the above I said "these" not "this", so I never only refer
to tc_should_offload)