netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 7/8] ixgbe: add pause frame stats

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]

Date:   Fri, 11 Sep 2020 15:13:43 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@...il.com>
Cc:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Michal Kubecek <mkubecek@...e.cz>,
        Michael Chan <michael.chan@...adcom.com>, tariqt@...dia.com,
        saeedm@...dia.com, Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
        Ido Schimmel <idosch@...sch.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 7/8] ixgbe: add pause frame stats

On Fri, 11 Sep 2020 14:12:50 -0700 Alexander Duyck wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 12:53 PM Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org> wrote:
> > @@ -3546,6 +3556,7 @@ static const struct ethtool_ops ixgbe_ethtool_ops = {
> >         .set_eeprom             = ixgbe_set_eeprom,
> >         .get_ringparam          = ixgbe_get_ringparam,
> >         .set_ringparam          = ixgbe_set_ringparam,
> > +       .get_pause_stats        = ixgbe_get_pause_stats,
> >         .get_pauseparam         = ixgbe_get_pauseparam,
> >         .set_pauseparam         = ixgbe_set_pauseparam,
> >         .get_msglevel           = ixgbe_get_msglevel,  
> 
> So the count for this is simpler in igb than it is for ixgbe. I'm
> assuming you want just standard link flow control frames. If so then
> this patch is correct. Otherwise if you are wanting to capture
> priority flow control data then those are a seperate array of stats
> prefixed with a "p" instead of an "l". Otherwise this looks fine to
> me.

That's my interpretation, although I haven't found any place the
standard would address this directly. Non-PFC pause has a different
opcode, so I'm reasonably certain this makes sense.

BTW I'm not entirely clear on what "global PFC pause" is either.

Maybe someone can clarify? Mellanox folks?

> Reviewed-by: Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@...ux.intel.com>

Thanks!