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: <Y0+xh2V7KUMRPaUI@corigine.com>
Date:   Wed, 19 Oct 2022 09:12:55 +0100
From:   Simon Horman <simon.horman@...igine.com>
To:     Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>
Cc:     Ilya Maximets <i.maximets@....org>,
        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 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.