netdev - Re: [PATCH v4 04/10] 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]

Date:   Wed, 24 Nov 2021 06:10:24 -0500
From:   Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>
To:     Baowen Zheng <baowen.zheng@...igine.com>,
        Simon Horman <simon.horman@...igine.com>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Cc:     Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
        Ido Schimmel <idosch@...dia.com>,
        Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>, Oz Shlomo <ozsh@...dia.com>,
        Roi Dayan <roid@...dia.com>, Vlad Buslov <vladbu@...dia.com>,
        Louis Peens <louis.peens@...igine.com>,
        oss-drivers <oss-drivers@...igine.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 04/10] flow_offload: allow user to offload tc action to
 net device

On 2021-11-23 21:11, Baowen Zheng wrote:
> On November 24, 2021 3:04 AM, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote:

[..]

>> The simplest approach seems to be adding a field in ops struct and call it
>> hw_id (we already have id which represents the s/w side).
>> All your code in flow_action_init() then becomes something like:
>>
>>          if (!fl_action)
>>                  return -EINVAL;
>>
>>          fl_action->extack = extack;
>>          fl_action->command = cmd;
>>          fl_action->index = act->tcfa_index;
>>
>>
>>          fl_action->id = act->hwid;
>>
>> And modules continue to work. Did i miss something?
>>
> Hi Jamal, for your suggestion, I think it will work for most of the case. But there maybe some kind of actions
> that will be assigned different hw_id in different case, such as the gact, we need to think about this case.
> So I will prefer to add a callback in action ops struct to implement the flow_action_init function for the new added
> Standalone action.
> WDYT?
> 

Yes, the callback makes sense. I imagine this would be needed also
if you offload mirred (selecting whether to mirror or redirect).

>>> Do you think it is proper to include this implement in our patch series or we
>> can delivery a new patch for this?
>>
>> Unless I am missing something basic, I dont see this as hard to do as explained
>> above in this patch series.
> I did not mean it is difficult.
> Since as my understanding, we will have the same problem in function of tc_setup_flow_action to
> Setup the actions for a to be offloaded flower. So my proposal is to add a callback in action ops to implement
> Both the function of flow_act_init and tc_setup_flow_action with a flag(maybe bind?) as a distinguish.
> What is your opinion?


See above. I agree with your suggestion.

cheers,
jamal