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  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:   Tue, 3 Aug 2021 13:35:25 +0200
From:   Simon Horman <>
To:     Jamal Hadi Salim <>
Cc:     David Miller <>,
        Jakub Kicinski <>,
        Cong Wang <>,
        Jiri Pirko <>,,, Baowen Zheng <>,
        Louis Peens <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 3/3] flow_offload: add process to update action
 stats from hardware

On Tue, Aug 03, 2021 at 07:24:47AM -0400, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote:
> On 2021-07-22 5:19 a.m., Simon Horman wrote:
> [..]
> >   /* offload the tc command after deleted */
> >   int tcf_action_offload_del_post(struct flow_offload_action *fl_act,
> >   				struct tc_action *actions[],
> > @@ -1255,6 +1293,9 @@ int tcf_action_copy_stats(struct sk_buff *skb, struct tc_action *p,
> >   	if (p == NULL)
> >   		goto errout;
> > +	/* update hw stats for this action */
> > +	tcf_action_update_hw_stats(p);
> This is more a curiosity than a comment on the patch: Is the
> driver polling for these stats synchronously and what we get here
> is the last update or do we end up invoking beyond
> the driver when requesting for the stats?

I would have to double check but I believe the driver will report
back stats already received from the HW, rather than going all the way
to HW when the above call is made.

> Overall commentary from looking at the patch set:
> I believe your patches will support the individual tc actions
> add/del/get/dump command line requests.

Yes, that is the aim of this patchset.

> What is missing is an example usage all the way to the driver. I am sure
> you have additional patches that put this to good  use. My suggestion
> is to test that cli with that pov against your overall patches and
> show this in your commit logs - even if those patches are to follow
> later.

Thanks, I'll see about making that so.

Just to be clear. We do have patches for the driver. And we do plan to post
them for inclusion in mainline. But I do believe that from a review
perspective its easier if one thing follows another.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists