netdev - Re: [net-next PATCH 04/15] bnxt: Replace ndo_add/del_vxlan_port with ndo_add/del_udp_enc

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: <CAMt9YRqjsDGiZ9b+qaCYPrhJD_p7O5jPAk14nmbr_B0y54FHdw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 13 Jun 2016 12:16:28 -0700
From:	Alex Duyck <aduyck@...antis.com>
To:	Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...hat.com>
Cc:	Jesse Gross <jesse@...nel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org, Jiri Benc <jbenc@...hat.com>,
	Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@...il.com>,
	saeedm@...lanox.com, Ariel Elior <ariel.elior@...gic.com>,
	Tom Herbert <tom@...bertland.com>,
	Dept-GELinuxNICDev@...gic.com, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	eugenia@...lanox.com
Subject: Re: [net-next PATCH 04/15] bnxt: Replace ndo_add/del_vxlan_port with ndo_add/del_udp_enc_port

On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 12:14 PM, Hannes Frederic Sowa
<hannes@...hat.com> wrote:
> On 13.06.2016 20:41, Jesse Gross wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 10:48 AM, Alexander Duyck <aduyck@...antis.com> wrote:
>>> This change replaces the network device operations for adding or removing a
>>> VXLAN port with operations that are more generically defined to be used for
>>> any UDP offload port but provide a type.  As such by just adding a line to
>>> verify that the offload type if VXLAN we can maintain the same
>>> functionality.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Alexander Duyck <aduyck@...antis.com>
>>
>> It looks like bnxt actually has a hardcoded offload of the Geneve port
>> rather than using the registration (maybe it predated it?). It would
>> be nice to incorporate that into your unified handler as well.
>>
>> I think you could actually just kill all of these
>> CONFIG_VXLAN/CONFIG_GENEVE checks (across all the drivers, not just
>> this one). They shouldn't be necessary any more now that there's no
>> longer strong linkage to the tunnel drivers.
>
> Yes, agreed. We can remove the CONFIG_VXLAN and CONFIG_GENEVE stuff now.
> But I think this can be a separate series.

Actually it should be pretty easy to do all of this in the same
series.  I am directly effecting the code where it is wrapped up
anyway.  Dropping the defines will make this easier for me to test.

- Alex