netdev - RE: [PATCH net-next v2 11/12] bnxt

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:   Thu, 2 Feb 2017 17:18:35 +0000
From:   "Mintz, Yuval" <Yuval.Mintz@...ium.com>
To:     Michael Chan <michael.chan@...adcom.com>,
        "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>
CC:     "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH net-next v2 11/12] bnxt_en: Add basic XDP support.

> +config BNXT_XDP
> +	bool "Xpress Data Path (XDP) driver support"
> +	default n
> +	depends on BNXT && BPF
> +	---help---
> +	  Say Y here if you want to enable XDP in the driver to support
> +	  eBPF programs in the fast path.
> +

Wasn't it recently discussed that per-feature option is preferable
to a per-feature per-device option?
Assuming BPF > XDP and thus shouldn't directly imply that XDP
should be supported, perhaps the right thing is to add a global
XDP config option?

> +	if (prog && bp->dev->mtu > BNXT_MAX_PAGE_MODE_MTU) {
> +		netdev_err(dev, "MTU %d larger than largest XDP supported
> MTU %d.\n",
> +			   bp->dev->mtu, BNXT_MAX_PAGE_MODE_MTU);
> +		return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> +	}

Is it O.k. to print with netdev_err() for a user-provided unsupported
configuration? Shouldn't that be limited?

> +		bool sh = (bp->flags & BNXT_FLAG_SHARED_RINGS) ? true :
> false;

Didn't you already check this flag is set?