netdev - Re: [PATCH 2/3] net:ethernet:rmnet:Support for downlink MAPv5 csum offload

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: <dfa87271-0ade-f8b5-b41f-1128353b3248@ieee.org>
Date:   Fri, 12 Feb 2021 13:06:56 -0600
From:   Alex Elder <elder@...e.org>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc:     Sharath Chandra Vurukala <sharathv@...eaurora.org>,
        davem@...emloft.net, elder@...nel.org, cpratapa@...eaurora.org,
        subashab@...eaurora.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] net:ethernet:rmnet:Support for downlink MAPv5 csum
 offload

On 2/12/21 12:51 PM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Feb 2021 08:01:15 -0600 Alex Elder wrote:
>> On 2/11/21 8:04 PM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
>>> On Fri, 12 Feb 2021 03:05:23 +0530 Sharath Chandra Vurukala wrote:
>>>> +/* MAP CSUM headers */
>>>> +struct rmnet_map_v5_csum_header {
>>>> +	u8  next_hdr:1;
>>>> +	u8  header_type:7;
>>>> +	u8  hw_reserved:5;
>>>> +	u8  priority:1;
>>>> +	u8  hw_reserved_bit:1;
>>>> +	u8  csum_valid_required:1;
>>>> +	__be16 reserved;
>>>> +} __aligned(1);
>>>
>>> Will this work on big endian?
>>
>> Sort of related to this point...
>>
>> I'm sure the response to this will be to add two versions
>> of the definition, surrounded __LITTLE_ENDIAN_BITFIELD
>> and __BIG_ENDIAN_BITFIELD tests.
>>
>> I really find this non-intuitive, and every time I
>> look at it I have to think about it a bit to figure
>> out where the bits actually lie in the word.
>>
>> I know this pattern is used elsewhere in the networking
>> code, but that doesn't make it any easier for me to
>> understand...
>>
>> Can we used mask, defined in host byte order, to
>> specify the positions of these fields?
>>
>> I proposed a change at one time that did this and
>> this *_ENDIAN_BITFIELD thing was used instead.
>>
>> I will gladly implement this change (completely
>> separate from what's being done here), but thought
>> it might be best to see what people think about it
>> before doing that work.
> 
> Most definitely agree, please convert.

KS, would you like me to do this to the existing code
first?

I don't think it will take me very long.  If it were
a priority I could probably get it done by the end of
today, but I'd want to ensure the result worked for
the testing you do.

					-Alex