netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v5 01/11] ethtool: Add support for configuring frame preemption

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: <20220520090611.5gcguajnucyj7uli@skbuf>
Date:   Fri, 20 May 2022 09:06:12 +0000
From:   Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com>
To:     Vinicius Costa Gomes <vinicius.gomes@...el.com>
CC:     "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "jhs@...atatu.com" <jhs@...atatu.com>,
        "xiyou.wangcong@...il.com" <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
        "jiri@...nulli.us" <jiri@...nulli.us>,
        "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Po Liu <po.liu@....com>,
        "boon.leong.ong@...el.com" <boon.leong.ong@...el.com>,
        "intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org" <intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v5 01/11] ethtool: Add support for configuring
 frame preemption

Hi Vinicius,

On Thu, May 19, 2022 at 06:15:28PM -0700, Vinicius Costa Gomes wrote:
> Frame preemption (described in IEEE 802.3-2018, Section 99 in
> particular) defines the concept of preemptible and express queues. It
> allows traffic from express queues to "interrupt" traffic from
> preemptible queues, which are "resumed" after the express traffic has
> finished transmitting.
> 
> Expose the UAPI bits for applications to enable using ethtool-netlink.
> Also expose the kernel ethtool functions, so device drivers can
> support it.
> 
> Frame preemption can only be used when both the local device and the
> link partner support it.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Vinicius Costa Gomes <vinicius.gomes@...el.com>
> ---

This looks good to me. Just one comment below.

> +int ethnl_set_preempt(struct sk_buff *skb, struct genl_info *info)
> +{
> +	struct ethnl_req_info req_info = {};
> +	struct nlattr **tb = info->attrs;
> +	struct ethtool_fp preempt = {};
> +	struct net_device *dev;
> +	bool mod = false;
> +	int ret;
> +
> +	ret = ethnl_parse_header_dev_get(&req_info,
> +					 tb[ETHTOOL_A_PREEMPT_HEADER],
> +					 genl_info_net(info), info->extack,
> +					 true);
> +	if (ret < 0)
> +		return ret;
> +	dev = req_info.dev;
> +
> +	ret = -EOPNOTSUPP;
> +	if (!dev->ethtool_ops->get_preempt ||
> +	    !dev->ethtool_ops->set_preempt)
> +		goto out_dev;
> +
> +	rtnl_lock();
> +	ret = ethnl_ops_begin(dev);
> +	if (ret < 0)
> +		goto out_rtnl;
> +
> +	ret = dev->ethtool_ops->get_preempt(dev, &preempt);
> +	if (ret < 0) {
> +		GENL_SET_ERR_MSG(info, "failed to retrieve frame preemption settings");
> +		goto out_ops;
> +	}
> +
> +	ret = ethnl_update_bitset32(&preempt.preemptible_mask, PREEMPT_QUEUES_COUNT,
> +				    tb[ETHTOOL_A_PREEMPT_PREEMPTIBLE_MASK],
> +				    NULL, info->extack, &mod);
> +	if (ret < 0)
> +		goto out_ops;
> +
> +	ethnl_update_bool32(&preempt.enabled,
> +			    tb[ETHTOOL_A_PREEMPT_ENABLED], &mod);
> +	ethnl_update_u32(&preempt.add_frag_size,
> +			 tb[ETHTOOL_A_PREEMPT_ADD_FRAG_SIZE], &mod);
> +	ret = 0;
> +	if (!mod)
> +		goto out_ops;
> +
> +	ret = dev->ethtool_ops->set_preempt(dev, &preempt, info->extack);
> +	if (ret < 0) {
> +		GENL_SET_ERR_MSG(info, "frame preemption settings update failed");

If you pass the extack to ->set_preempt, would you consider not
overwriting it immediately afterwards on error?

> +		goto out_ops;
> +	}
> +
> +	ethtool_notify(dev, ETHTOOL_MSG_PREEMPT_NTF, NULL);
> +
> +out_ops:
> +	ethnl_ops_complete(dev);
> +out_rtnl:
> +	rtnl_unlock();
> +out_dev:
> +	dev_put(dev);
> +	return ret;
> +}
> -- 
> 2.35.3
>