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]

Message-ID: <f92c3979-4a33-94ec-e687-e9639663e83c@mojatatu.com>
Date:   Wed, 24 Nov 2021 06:32:31 -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 2021-11-24 06:10, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote:
> 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).
> 

BTW, I think i am able to parse your earlier message better. There is
an equivalent piece of code in cls_api.c. I didnt realize you had
cutnpasted from that code.
So this callback change has to be a separate patch. i.e
patchset 1 to
1) add the callback 2) simplify cls_api.c code
patchset 2: Your patchset that then uses the cb.

I am also wondering why that code is in the cls_api.c to begin with...

cheers,
jamal

I think if you add the action
callback then you can also simplify that.

Unfortunately that is now a separate patch given tha