netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 4/4] net/sched: cls_bpf: Use skip flags to reflect HW offload status

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: <CAJ3xEMhEMexUT66xi+1JqTijs32a_O_V8AmwG9UdU5MgWsjGpA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Sun, 12 Feb 2017 11:46:21 +0200
From:   Or Gerlitz <gerlitz.or@...il.com>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kubakici@...pl>
Cc:     Or Gerlitz <ogerlitz@...lanox.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        John Fastabend <john.r.fastabend@...el.com>,
        Amir Vadai <amirva@...ai.me>,
        Linux Netdev List <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Jiri Pirko <jiri@...lanox.com>,
        Paul Blakey <paulb@...lanox.com>, Roi Dayan <roid@...lanox.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 4/4] net/sched: cls_bpf: Use skip flags to
 reflect HW offload status

On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 7:42 PM, Jakub Kicinski <kubakici@...pl> wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Feb 2017 18:33:13 +0200, Or Gerlitz wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 3:22 AM, Jakub Kicinski <kubakici@...pl> wrote:

>> > In cls_bpf we do store information about whether program is offloaded or
>> > not already (see the @offloaded member).  Could we simplify the code
>> > thanks to this?

>> yeah, I felt like I don't fully understand the role of the offloaded
>> member. As I wrote, this patch is compile tested only, I will be happy
>> if you can test it post here a better version, I don't think we need
>> to add/change the flags semantics, see next

> The @offloaded member just tells us whether the program is offloaded.
> We need it because unlike u32 and flower (I think) we have explicit
> ADD and REPLACE.  Other filters just always do REPLACE.  I assume the
> driver keeps track if there is already an associated rule in that case?

In flower you always add new filter through the replace
(TC_CLSFLOWER_REPLACE) call