[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <IA1PR12MB6353C7C5FA91CAB18B267444ABFF9@IA1PR12MB6353.namprd12.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2023 09:05:36 +0000
From: Emeel Hakim <ehakim@...dia.com>
To: Antoine Tenart <atenart@...nel.org>,
Sabrina Dubroca <sd@...asysnail.net>
CC: "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Raed Salem <raeds@...dia.com>,
"davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
"edumazet@...gle.com" <edumazet@...gle.com>,
"kuba@...nel.org" <kuba@...nel.org>,
"pabeni@...hat.com" <pabeni@...hat.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH net-next v7 1/2] macsec: add support for
IFLA_MACSEC_OFFLOAD in macsec_changelink
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Antoine Tenart <atenart@...nel.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, 10 January 2023 10:44
> To: Sabrina Dubroca <sd@...asysnail.net>; Emeel Hakim <ehakim@...dia.com>
> Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org; Raed Salem <raeds@...dia.com>;
> davem@...emloft.net; edumazet@...gle.com; kuba@...nel.org;
> pabeni@...hat.com
> Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v7 1/2] macsec: add support for
> IFLA_MACSEC_OFFLOAD in macsec_changelink
>
> External email: Use caution opening links or attachments
>
>
> Quoting Sabrina Dubroca (2023-01-09 16:14:32)
> > 2023-01-09, 10:55:56 +0200, ehakim@...dia.com wrote:
> > > @@ -3840,6 +3835,12 @@ static int macsec_changelink(struct net_device
> *dev, struct nlattr *tb[],
> > > if (ret)
> > > goto cleanup;
> > >
> > > + if (data[IFLA_MACSEC_OFFLOAD]) {
> > > + ret = macsec_update_offload(dev,
> nla_get_u8(data[IFLA_MACSEC_OFFLOAD]));
> > > + if (ret)
> > > + goto cleanup;
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > /* If h/w offloading is available, propagate to the device */
> > > if (macsec_is_offloaded(macsec)) {
> > > const struct macsec_ops *ops;
> >
> > There's a missing rollback of the offloading status in the (probably
> > quite unlikely) case that mdo_upd_secy fails, no? We can't fail
> > macsec_get_ops because macsec_update_offload would have failed
> > already, but I guess the driver could fail in mdo_upd_secy, and then
> > "goto cleanup" doesn't restore the offloading state. Sorry I didn't
> > notice this earlier.
> >
> > In case the IFLA_MACSEC_OFFLOAD attribute is provided and we're
> > enabling offload, we also end up calling the driver's mdo_add_secy,
> > and then immediately afterwards mdo_upd_secy, which probably doesn't
> > make much sense.
> >
> > Maybe we could turn that into:
> >
> > if (data[IFLA_MACSEC_OFFLOAD]) {
>
> If data[IFLA_MACSEC_OFFLOAD] is provided but doesn't change the offloading
> state, then macsec_update_offload will return early and mdo_upd_secy won't be
> called.
>
> > ... macsec_update_offload
> > } else if (macsec_is_offloaded(macsec)) {
> > /* If h/w offloading is available, propagate to the device */
> > ... mdo_upd_secy
> > }
> >
> > Antoine, does that look reasonable to you?
>
> But yes I agree we can improve the logic. Maybe something like:
Ack , I can do the change
> prev_offload = macsec->offload;
> offload = data[IFLA_MACSEC_OFFLOAD];
>
> if (prev_offload != offload) {
> macsec_update_offload(...)
> } else if (macsec_is_offloaded(macsec)) {
> ...
> prev_offload can be used to restore the offloading state on
> failure here.
why do we need to restore offloading state here in case of failure?
we get to this case when prev_offload == offload.
> }
>
> Thanks,
> Antoine
Powered by blists - more mailing lists