netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] net/sched: pkt_cls: change tc actions order to be as the user sets

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:   Mon, 26 Sep 2016 13:34:48 -0700
From:   Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
To:     Hadar Hen Zion <hadarh@....mellanox.co.il>
Cc:     Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>,
        Hadar Hen Zion <hadarh@...lanox.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Or Gerlitz <ogerlitz@...lanox.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] net/sched: pkt_cls: change tc actions order to
 be as the user sets

On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 11:02 PM, Hadar Hen Zion
<hadarh@....mellanox.co.il> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 7:31 AM, Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 7:39 AM, Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com> wrote:
>>> On 16-09-25 10:08 AM, Hadar Hen Zion wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Currently the created tc actions list is reversed against the order
>>>> set by the user.
>>>> Change the actions list order to be the same as was set by the user.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Did something break? It seems to matter most for dumping. But even that
>>> didnt breaking. Looking at the latest net tree, i tried:
>>>
>>
>> The reason is we use action->order as an nested attribute, so
>> the order in the list doesn't matter, only action->order itself matters.
>
> The order in the list matters for offload drivers who use the
> "tcf_exts_to_list" function and action->order parameter isn't usable
> for them.
> Why not keeping the actions in the same order as the user? isn't it
> more elegant?

I don't object this patch since it affects offloading, I just explained
why it doesn't affect dumping.

Please add this to your changelog, to make it obvious.

Thanks!