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]

Date:   Sat, 30 Jul 2022 04:58:09 +0000
From:   Baowen Zheng <baowen.zheng@...igine.com>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>
CC:     Simon Horman <simon.horman@...igine.com>,
        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" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Tariq Toukan <tariqt@...dia.com>, Roi Dayan <roid@...dia.com>,
        Jianbo Liu <jianbol@...dia.com>, Oz Shlomo <ozsh@...dia.com>
Subject: RE: [net-next 06/15] net/mlx5e: TC, Support tc action api for police

>Subject: Re: [net-next 06/15] net/mlx5e: TC, Support tc action api for police
>
>On Fri, 29 Jul 2022 17:51:05 +0100 Simon Horman wrote:
>> 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.
>
>Thank you! No very deep dives necessary from my perspective, just wanted for
>the authors of the action offload API to look over.
Hi Jakub, thanks for noticing us about this change, for this patch, it seems good to me. 
I just have a tiny doubt, since Nvida just add a validation for a police offload, why it is not applied to this meter offload patch? 
Since I do not know much details about Nvdia meter implement, I guess not all the police action result is supported, so maybe validation is necessary.

Thanks