netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 4/4] net/mlx4_core: Add an option to configure SVLAN TPID

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: <CAJ3xEMho+6W_r3kEuq2+tCD1FZfW0M0xJzS-VGLUD9fK17u+1Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 7 Jul 2016 22:38:24 +0300
From:	Or Gerlitz <gerlitz.or@...il.com>
To:	Tariq Toukan <tariqt@...lanox.com>,
	Moshe Shemesh <moshe@...lanox.com>
Cc:	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Linux Netdev List <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Eran Ben Elisha <eranbe@...lanox.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 4/4] net/mlx4_core: Add an option to configure
 SVLAN TPID

On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 3:29 PM, Tariq Toukan <tariqt@...lanox.com> wrote:
> From: Moshe Shemesh <moshe@...lanox.com>
>
> Expose mlx4_config_svlan_tpid, that checks for feature support
> in device capabilities and sets the Service Tag TPID accordingly.

I Googled for service tag TPID and I understand this is what we can
vlan protcol, correct? any reason to call it differently?


> @@ -2286,6 +2291,7 @@ struct mlx4_config_dev {
>  #define MLX4_VXLAN_UDP_DPORT (1 << 0)
>  #define MLX4_ROCE_V2_UDP_DPORT BIT(3)
>  #define MLX4_DISABLE_RX_PORT BIT(18)
> +#define MLX4_SVLAN_TPID BIT(20)
>
>  static int mlx4_CONFIG_DEV_set(struct mlx4_dev *dev, struct mlx4_config_dev *config_dev)
>  {
> @@ -2372,6 +2378,8 @@ int mlx4_config_dev_retrieval(struct mlx4_dev *dev,
>
>         params->vxlan_udp_dport = be16_to_cpu(config_dev.vxlan_udp_dport);
>
> +       params->svlan_tpid = be16_to_cpu(config_dev.svlan_tpid);
> +
>         return 0;
>  }
>  EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(mlx4_config_dev_retrieval);
> @@ -2414,6 +2422,21 @@ int mlx4_config_roce_v2_port(struct mlx4_dev *dev, u16 udp_port)
>  }
>  EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(mlx4_config_roce_v2_port);
>
> +int mlx4_config_svlan_tpid(struct mlx4_dev *dev, __be16 svlan_tpid)
> +{
> +       struct mlx4_config_dev config_dev;
> +
> +       if (!(dev->caps.flags2 & MLX4_DEV_CAP_FLAG2_SVLAN_TPID))
> +               return -ENOTSUPP;
> +
> +       memset(&config_dev, 0, sizeof(config_dev));
> +       config_dev.update_flags    = cpu_to_be32(MLX4_SVLAN_TPID);
> +       config_dev.svlan_tpid = svlan_tpid;
> +
> +       return mlx4_CONFIG_DEV_set(dev, &config_dev);
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(mlx4_config_svlan_tpid);

dead code? I don't see any invocation of this helper on the patch, if
it's on earlier patches of the series it means you broke bisection...