netdev - Re: [ovs-dev] [PATCH] tests: fix reference output for meter offload stats

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: <CAM0EoM=5wqbsOL-ZPkuhQXTJh3pTGqhdDDXuEqsjxEoAapApdQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Sat, 8 Oct 2022 08:32:22 -0400
From:   Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>
To:     Marcelo Leitner <mleitner@...hat.com>
Cc:     Davide Caratti <dcaratti@...hat.com>,
        Ilya Maximets <i.maximets@....org>,
        Eelco Chaudron <echaudro@...hat.com>,
        Tianyu Yuan <tianyu.yuan@...igine.com>,
        Simon Horman <simon.horman@...igine.com>, dev@...nvswitch.org,
        oss-drivers <oss-drivers@...igine.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
        Oz Shlomo <ozsh@...dia.com>, Paul Blakey <paulb@...dia.com>,
        Vlad Buslov <vladbu@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [ovs-dev] [PATCH] tests: fix reference output for meter offload stats

On Fri, Oct 7, 2022 at 1:37 PM Marcelo Leitner <mleitner@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 07, 2022 at 11:59:42AM -0400, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 7, 2022 at 11:01 AM Marcelo Leitner <mleitner@...hat.com> wrote:
> > >

[..]
> >
> > It's mostly how people who offload (not sure about OVS) do it;
> > example some of the switches out there.
>
> You mean with OK, DROP, TRAP or GOTO actions, right?
>
> Because for PIPE, it has:
>                 } else if (is_tcf_gact_pipe(act)) {
>                         NL_SET_ERR_MSG_MOD(extack, "Offload of
> \"pipe\" action is not supported");
>                         return -EOPNOTSUPP;
>

I thought it was pipe but maybe it is OK(in my opinion that is a bad code
for just "count"). We have some (at least NIC) hardware folks on the list.
Note: we could create an alias to PIPE and call it COUNT if it helps.
And yes, in retrospect we should probably have separated out accounting
from the actions in tc. It makes a lot of sense in s/w - and would work fine for
modern hardware but when you dont have as many counters as actions
it's a challenge. Same thing with policers/meters.

cheers,
jamal