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  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:   Fri, 29 Jul 2022 19:58:44 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <>
To:     Simon Horman <>
Cc:     Simon Horman <>,
        Saeed Mahameed <>,
        "David S. Miller" <>,
        Paolo Abeni <>,
        Eric Dumazet <>,
        Saeed Mahameed <>,,
        Tariq Toukan <>, Roi Dayan <>,
        Jianbo Liu <>, Oz Shlomo <>,
        Baowen Zheng <>
Subject: Re: [net-next 06/15] net/mlx5e: TC, Support tc action api for

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.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists