netdev - Re: [patch net-next v2 03/12] flow_offload: check for basic action hw stats type

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20200229111848.53450ff1@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
Date:   Sat, 29 Feb 2020 11:18:48 -0800
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net, saeedm@...lanox.com,
        leon@...nel.org, michael.chan@...adcom.com, vishal@...lsio.com,
        jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com, idosch@...lanox.com,
        aelior@...vell.com, peppe.cavallaro@...com,
        alexandre.torgue@...com, jhs@...atatu.com,
        xiyou.wangcong@...il.com, pablo@...filter.org,
        ecree@...arflare.com, mlxsw@...lanox.com
Subject: Re: [patch net-next v2 03/12] flow_offload: check for basic action
 hw stats type

On Sat, 29 Feb 2020 08:40:04 +0100 Jiri Pirko wrote:
> Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 08:40:56PM CET, kuba@...nel.org wrote:
> >On Fri, 28 Feb 2020 18:24:56 +0100 Jiri Pirko wrote:  
> >> @@ -299,6 +300,9 @@ static int bnxt_tc_parse_actions(struct bnxt *bp,
> >>  		return -EINVAL;
> >>  	}
> >>  
> >> +	if (!flow_action_basic_hw_stats_types_check(flow_action, extack))
> >> +		return -EOPNOTSUPP;  
> >
> >Could we have this helper take one stat type? To let drivers pass the
> >stat type they support?   
> 
> That would be always "any" as "any" is supported by all drivers.
> And that is exactly what the helper checks..

I'd think most drivers implement some form of DELAYED today, 'cause for
the number of flows things like OvS need that's the only practical one.
I was thinking to let drivers pass DELAYED here.

I agree that your patch would most likely pass ANY in almost all cases
as you shouldn't be expected to know all the drivers, but at least the
maintainers can easily just tweak the parameter.

Does that make sense? Maybe I'm missing something.