netdev - Re: [PATCH v2 net-next 3/6] sfc: optional logging of TC offload errors

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: <20220928181504.234644e3@kernel.org>
Date:   Wed, 28 Sep 2022 18:15:04 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     Edward Cree <ecree.xilinx@...il.com>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-net-drivers@....com,
        davem@...emloft.net, pabeni@...hat.com, edumazet@...gle.com,
        habetsm.xilinx@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 net-next 3/6] sfc: optional logging of TC offload
 errors

On Wed, 28 Sep 2022 22:14:37 +0100 Edward Cree wrote:
> On 28/09/2022 20:07, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > Let's solve practical problems first :) The cases with multiple devices
> > offloading are rare AFAIK.  
> 
> I know of someone who is working on such a use-case for the Alveo U25N
>  and running into Interesting difficulties with the same rule getting
>  offloaded twice; they probably would care about getting both devices'
>  error messages.  I know the plural of anecdote is not data; but I
>  think it's not so rare that we can completely ignore it.

Hm. I wonder if throwing a tracepoint into the extack setting
machinery would be a reasonable stop gap for debugging.