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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2022 17:24:19 +0300 From: Roi Dayan <roid@...dia.com> To: Baowen Zheng <baowen.zheng@...igine.com>, 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>, 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 On 2022-07-30 7:58 AM, Baowen Zheng wrote: >> 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 hi, as Simon already mentioned. offloading action meter is done in mlx5e_tc_add_flow_meter() and adding a tc rule with meter will use mlx5e_tc_meter_get() to find the existing meter by index if exists. as for Baowen Zhang comment. you are right. it seems I missed a validation part. since its merged I will send a fix commit. thanks
Powered by blists - more mailing lists