netdev - RE: Re: [v4,iproute2-next 1/2] iproute2-next:tc:action: add a gate control action

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <VE1PR04MB64969AC550AE3A762DADEF5292A50@VE1PR04MB6496.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>
Date:   Thu, 7 May 2020 02:52:56 +0000
From:   Po Liu <po.liu@....com>
To:     Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>
CC:     "dsahern@...il.com" <dsahern@...il.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "vinicius.gomes@...el.com" <vinicius.gomes@...el.com>,
        "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        "vlad@...lov.dev" <vlad@...lov.dev>,
        Claudiu Manoil <claudiu.manoil@....com>,
        Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com>,
        Alexandru Marginean <alexandru.marginean@....com>
Subject: RE: Re: [v4,iproute2-next 1/2] iproute2-next:tc:action: add a gate
 control action

Hi Stephen,


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>
> Sent: 2020年5月6日 23:22
> To: Po Liu <po.liu@....com>
> Cc: dsahern@...il.com; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org;
> netdev@...r.kernel.org; vinicius.gomes@...el.com;
> davem@...emloft.net; vlad@...lov.dev; Claudiu Manoil
> <claudiu.manoil@....com>; Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com>;
> Alexandru Marginean <alexandru.marginean@....com>
> Subject: Re: [v4,iproute2-next 1/2] iproute2-next:tc:action: add a
> gate control action
> On Wed,  6 May 2020 16:40:19 +0800
> Po Liu <Po.Liu@....com> wrote:
> 
> >               } else if (matches(*argv, "base-time") == 0) {
> > +                     NEXT_ARG();
> > +                     if (get_u64(&base_time, *argv, 10)) {
> > +                             invalidarg = "base-time";
> > +                             goto err_arg;
> > +                     }
> > +             } else if (matches(*argv, "cycle-time") == 0) {
> > +                     NEXT_ARG();
> > +                     if (get_u64(&cycle_time, *argv, 10)) {
> > +                             invalidarg = "cycle-time";
> > +                             goto err_arg;
> > +                     }
> > +             } else if (matches(*argv, "cycle-time-ext") == 0) {
> > +                     NEXT_ARG();
> > +                     if (get_u64(&cycle_time_ext, *argv, 10)) {
> > +                             invalidarg = "cycle-time-ext";
> > +                             goto err_arg;
> > +                     }
> 
> Could all these time values use existing TC helper routines?

I agree to keep the tc routines input.
The names of timer input and type is more reference the taprio input.

> See get_time().  The way you have it makes sense for hardware but stands
> out versus the rest of tc.
> 
> It maybe that the kernel UAPI is wrong, and should be using same time
> units as rest of tc. Forgot to review that part of the patch.

I would also sync with kernel UAPI if needed.


Br,
Po Liu