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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2022 14:28:29 +0200 From: Simon Horman <simon.horman@...igine.com> To: Ilya Maximets <i.maximets@....org> Cc: Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>, Marcelo Leitner <mleitner@...hat.com>, Davide Caratti <dcaratti@...hat.com>, Eelco Chaudron <echaudro@...hat.com>, Tianyu Yuan <tianyu.yuan@...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 Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 02:17:42PM +0200, Ilya Maximets wrote: > On 10/19/22 10:12, Simon Horman wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 14, 2022 at 10:40:30AM -0400, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote: > >> On Fri, Oct 14, 2022 at 9:00 AM Ilya Maximets <i.maximets@....org> wrote: > >>> > >> > >> [..] > >>>> 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. > >>> > >>> IIRC, 'OK' action will stop the processing for the packet, so it can > >>> only be used as a last action in the list. But we need to count packets > >>> as a very first action in the list. So, that doesn't help. > >>> > >> > >> That's why i said it is a bad code - but i believe it's what some of > >> the hardware > >> people are doing. Note: it's only bad if you have more actions after because > >> it aborts the processing pipeline. > >> > >>>> Note: we could create an alias to PIPE and call it COUNT if it helps. > >>> > >>> Will that help with offloading of that action? Why the PIPE is not > >>> offloadable in the first place and will COUNT be offloadable? > >> > >> Offloadable is just a semantic choice in this case. If someone is > >> using OK to count today - they could should be able to use PIPE > >> instead (their driver needs to do some transformation of course). > > > > FWIIW, yes, that is my thinking too. > > I don't know that code well, but I thought that tcf_gact_offload_act_setup() > is a generic function. And since it explicitly forbids offload of PIPE > action, no drivers can actually offload it even if they want to. Sure, but I would expect that can be changed. > So it's not really a driver's choice in the current kernel code. Or am I > missing something? > > Best regards, Ilya Maximets.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists