netdev - Re: [net-next 06/15] net/mlx5e: TC, Support tc action api for police

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: <YuQP+cBUkyR1V1GT@vergenet.net>
Date:   Fri, 29 Jul 2022 17:51:05 +0100
From:   Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>
To:     Simon Horman <simon.horman@...igine.com>
Cc:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Saeed Mahameed <saeed@...nel.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...dia.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        Tariq Toukan <tariqt@...dia.com>, Roi Dayan <roid@...dia.com>,
        Jianbo Liu <jianbol@...dia.com>, Oz Shlomo <ozsh@...dia.com>,
        Baowen Zheng <baowen.zheng@...igine.com>
Subject: Re: [net-next 06/15] net/mlx5e: TC, Support tc action api for police

On Fri, Jul 29, 2022 at 08:14:23AM +0200, Simon Horman wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 28, 2022 at 10:18:52PM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > On Thu, 28 Jul 2022 13:57:19 -0700 Saeed Mahameed wrote:
> > > From: Roi Dayan <roid@...dia.com>
> > > 
> > > Add support for tc action api for police.
> > > Offloading standalone police action without
> > > a tc rule and reporting stats.
> > 
> > Do you already support shared actions? I don't see anything later 
> > in the series that'd allow the binding of rules.
> > 
> > The metering in this series is for specific flower flows or the entire
> > port?
> > 
> > 
> > Simon, Baowen, would you be willing to look thru these patches to make
> > sure the action sharing works as expected?
> 
> Certainly, we will review them.

Hi Jakub,

my reading of things is that the handling of offload of police (meter)
actions in flower rules by the mlx5 driver is such that it can handle
offloading actions by index - actions that it would now be possible
to add to hardware with this patch in place.

My reasoning assumes that mlx5e_tc_add_flow_meter() is called to offload
police (meter) actions in flower rules. And that it calls
mlx5e_tc_meter_get(), which can find actions based on an index.

I could, however, be mistaken as I have so much knowledge of the mlx5
driver. And rather than dive deeper I wanted to respond as above - I am
mindful of the point we are in the development cycle.

I would be happy to dive deeper into this as a mater of priority if
desired.