netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 8/8] net/mlx5e: Support adding ingress tc rule when egress device flag is set

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: <583F0007.3090507@gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 30 Nov 2016 08:36:23 -0800
From:   John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>
To:     Hadar Hen Zion <hadarh@...lanox.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...lanox.com>,
        Jiri Pirko <jiri@...lanox.com>,
        Amir Vadai <amirva@...lanox.com>,
        Or Gerlitz <ogerlitz@...lanox.com>,
        Roi Dayan <roid@...lanox.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 8/8] net/mlx5e: Support adding ingress tc rule
 when egress device flag is set

On 16-11-30 06:41 AM, Hadar Hen Zion wrote:
> When ndo_setup_tc is called with an egress_dev flag set, it means that
> the ndo call was executed on the mirred action (egress) device and not
> on the ingress device.
> 
> In order to support this kind of ndo_setup_tc call, and insert the
> correct decap rule to the hardware, the uplink device on the same eswitch
> should be found.
> 
> Currently, we use this resolution between the mirred device and the
> uplink on the same eswitch to offload vxlan shared device decap rules.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Hadar Hen Zion <hadarh@...lanox.com>
> ---

Hi Hadar,

I started to dig through these patches and the last series here,

   Re: [PATCH net-next 00/13] Mellanox 100G SRIOV offloads tunnel_key
set/release

Can you explain how these two are related? I'm guessing in that first
series the actual redirect action to a tunnel device was being ignore?

Does this series clean up that bit of software/hardware alignment.

Thanks,
John


>  drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/en_rep.c | 8 ++++++++
>  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/en_rep.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/en_rep.c
> index 0868677..8503788 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/en_rep.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/en_rep.c
> @@ -289,6 +289,14 @@ static int mlx5e_rep_ndo_setup_tc(struct net_device *dev, u32 handle,
>  	if (TC_H_MAJ(handle) != TC_H_MAJ(TC_H_INGRESS))
>  		return -EOPNOTSUPP;
>  
> +	if (tc->egress_dev) {
> +		struct mlx5_eswitch *esw = priv->mdev->priv.eswitch;
> +		struct net_device *uplink_dev = mlx5_eswitch_get_uplink_netdev(esw);
> +
> +		return uplink_dev->netdev_ops->ndo_setup_tc(uplink_dev, handle,
> +							    proto, tc);
> +	}
> +
>  	switch (tc->type) {
>  	case TC_SETUP_CLSFLOWER:
>  		switch (tc->cls_flower->command) {
>