netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 1/3] flow_offload: allow user to offload tc action to net device

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: <20210803113057.GA23765@corigine.com>
Date:   Tue, 3 Aug 2021 13:31:00 +0200
From:   Simon Horman <simon.horman@...igine.com>
To:     Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>
Cc:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
        Jiri Pirko <jiri@...lanox.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        oss-drivers@...igine.com, Baowen Zheng <baowen.zheng@...igine.com>,
        Louis Peens <louis.peens@...igine.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/3] flow_offload: allow user to offload tc
 action to net device

On Tue, Aug 03, 2021 at 07:05:52AM -0400, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote:
> On 2021-07-22 5:19 a.m., Simon Horman wrote:
> 
> Triggered by my observation on 2/3 went back and looked at this again to
> see if we have same problem with notification on REPLACE case (I think
> we do) but here's another comment:
> 
> > +EXPORT_SYMBOL(tcf_action_offload_cmd);
> > +
> >   /* Returns numbers of initialized actions or negative error. */
> >   int tcf_action_init(struct net *net, struct tcf_proto *tp, struct nlattr *nla,
> > @@ -1514,6 +1544,9 @@ static int tcf_action_add(struct net *net, struct nlattr *nla,
> >   		return ret;
> >   	ret = tcf_add_notify(net, n, actions, portid, attr_size, extack);
> > +	/* offload actions to hardware if possible */
> > +	tcf_action_offload_cmd(actions, extack);
> > +
> 
> Above seems to be unconditional whether hw update is requested or not?
> The comment says the right thing ("if possible") but the code
> should have checked some sort of skip_sw check?

Jamal, we are going around in circles.

As we have already discussed, this patchset does not add support for
skip_sw (or skip_hw) for actions.