netdev - Re: [PATCH mlx5-next v1 1/8] net/mlx5: Add forward compatible support for the FTE match data

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_89Fxj3=2=pas_R_9M6sPXOPu0V3saBaqeJ3j+-hkw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Sun, 15 Jul 2018 11:03:11 +0300
From:   Or Gerlitz <gerlitz.or@...il.com>
To:     Yishai Hadas <yishaih@....mellanox.co.il>
Cc:     Yishai Hadas <yishaih@...lanox.com>,
        Doug Ledford <dledford@...hat.com>,
        Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...lanox.com>,
        Leon Romanovsky <leonro@...lanox.com>,
        RDMA mailing list <linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org>,
        Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...lanox.com>,
        linux-netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Majd Dibbiny <majd@...lanox.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH mlx5-next v1 1/8] net/mlx5: Add forward compatible support
 for the FTE match data

On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 10:26 AM, Yishai Hadas
<yishaih@....mellanox.co.il> wrote:
> On 7/12/2018 11:53 PM, Or Gerlitz wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 2:10 PM, Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org> wrote:
>>> From: Yishai Hadas <yishaih@...lanox.com>

>>> Use the PRM size including the reserved when working with the FTE
>>> match data.

>> is this actually a bug fix?

> No, it's some requirement from the new API to enable forward compatible
> support without changing the kernel code.

ok, but

>>> Also drop some driver checks around the match criteria leaving the work
>>> for firmware to enable forward compatibility for future bits there.

>> not following,

> Same as for the 'reserved' field but also for extending the 'match criteria'
> field with new bits without changing the kernel.

-- we need a clear memo as part of your change-logs and/or cover-letter/s that
explains the overall approach/design for
doing-things-without-changing-the-kernel,
does this exist? the arch/approach need not be deciphered from the
code or change logs
snapshots but rather stated clearly.