netdev - Re: [PATCH 11/20] octeontx2-af: Add support for stripping STAG/CTAG

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: <CA+sq2Cd480FWab9hJKaYxEK2L_HR9oLmqokbqrJwez0FE63txA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 9 Nov 2018 09:59:44 +0530
From:   Sunil Kovvuri <sunil.kovvuri@...il.com>
To:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc:     Linux Netdev List <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, linux-soc@...r.kernel.org,
        Tomasz Duszynski <tduszynski@...vell.com>,
        Sunil Goutham <sgoutham@...vell.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/20] octeontx2-af: Add support for stripping STAG/CTAG

On Fri, Nov 9, 2018 at 2:17 AM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 7:37 PM <sunil.kovvuri@...il.com> wrote:
>
> > diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/octeontx2/af/npc.h b/drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/octeontx2/af/npc.h
> > index f98b011..3f7e5e6 100644
> > --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/octeontx2/af/npc.h
> > +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/octeontx2/af/npc.h
> > @@ -259,4 +259,34 @@ struct nix_rx_action {
> >  #endif
> >  };
> >
> > +struct nix_rx_vtag_action {
> > +#if defined(__BIG_ENDIAN_BITFIELD)
> > +       u64     rsvd_63_48      :16;
> > +       u64     vtag1_valid     :1;
> > +       u64     vtag1_type      :3;
> > +       u64     rsvd_43         :1;
> > +       u64     vtag1_lid       :3;
> > +       u64     vtag1_relptr    :8;
> > +       u64     rsvd_31_16      :16;
> > +       u64     vtag0_valid     :1;
> > +       u64     vtag0_type      :3;
> > +       u64     rsvd_11         :1;
> > +       u64     vtag0_lid       :3;
> > +       u64     vtag0_relptr    :8;
> > +#else
> > +       u64     vtag0_relptr    :8;
> > +       u64     vtag0_lid       :3;
> > +       u64     rsvd_11         :1;
> > +       u64     vtag0_type      :3;
> > +       u64     vtag0_valid     :1;
> > +       u64     rsvd_31_16      :16;
> > +       u64     vtag1_relptr    :8;
> > +       u64     vtag1_lid       :3;
> > +       u64     rsvd_43         :1;
> > +       u64     vtag1_type      :3;
> > +       u64     vtag1_valid     :1;
> > +       u64     rsvd_63_48      :16;
> > +#endif
> > +};
>
> Here is another instance of bitfields in an interface structure. As
> before, please try to avoid doing that and use bit shifts and masks
> instead.
>
>        Arnd

No, this struct is not part of communication interface.
This is used to fill up a register in a bit more readable fashion
instead of plain bit shifts.

===
struct nix_rx_vtag_action vtag_action;

        *(u64 *)&vtag_action = 0;
        vtag_action.vtag0_valid = 1;
        /* must match type set in NIX_VTAG_CFG */
        vtag_action.vtag0_type = 0;
        vtag_action.vtag0_lid = NPC_LID_LA;
        vtag_action.vtag0_relptr = 12;
        entry.vtag_action = *(u64 *)&vtag_action;

        /* Set TAG 'action' */
        rvu_write64(rvu, blkaddr, NPC_AF_MCAMEX_BANKX_TAG_ACT(index, actbank),
                    entry->vtag_action);
===

Thanks,
Sunil.