netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v2 2/6] sfc: add notion of match on enc keys to MAE machinery

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: <ZCFYBQBJbVSRmWNc@corigine.com>
Date:   Mon, 27 Mar 2023 10:47:01 +0200
From:   Simon Horman <simon.horman@...igine.com>
To:     Edward Cree <ecree.xilinx@...il.com>
Cc:     edward.cree@....com, linux-net-drivers@....com,
        davem@...emloft.net, kuba@...nel.org, pabeni@...hat.com,
        edumazet@...gle.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        habetsm.xilinx@...il.com, michal.swiatkowski@...ux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 2/6] sfc: add notion of match on enc keys to
 MAE machinery

On Mon, Mar 27, 2023 at 09:20:06AM +0100, Edward Cree wrote:
> On 25/03/2023 12:03, Simon Horman wrote:
> > Hi Edward,
> > 
> > Looks good to me.
> > A few minor comments inline.
> > 
> > On Thu, Mar 23, 2023 at 08:45:10PM +0000, edward.cree@....com wrote:
> >> From: Edward Cree <ecree.xilinx@...il.com>
> >>
> >> Extend the MAE caps check to validate that the hardware supports used
> >>  outer-header matches.
> > 
> > s/used// ?
> 
> I think I meant it in the sense of "the outer-header matches which
>  are used by the driver"; I can definitely reword it to spell that
>  out better.

Thanks, I did have a bit of trouble parsing the text.

> >>  int efx_mae_allocate_counter(struct efx_nic *efx, struct efx_tc_counter *cnt)
> >>  {
> >>  	MCDI_DECLARE_BUF(outbuf, MC_CMD_MAE_COUNTER_ALLOC_OUT_LEN(1));
> >> @@ -941,6 +1011,29 @@ static int efx_mae_populate_match_criteria(MCDI_DECLARE_STRUCT_PTR(match_crit),
> >>  				match->value.tcp_flags);
> >>  	MCDI_STRUCT_SET_WORD_BE(match_crit, MAE_FIELD_MASK_VALUE_PAIRS_V2_TCP_FLAGS_BE_MASK,
> >>  				match->mask.tcp_flags);
> >> +	/* enc-keys are handled indirectly, through encap_match ID */
> >> +	if (match->encap) {
> >> +		MCDI_STRUCT_SET_DWORD(match_crit, MAE_FIELD_MASK_VALUE_PAIRS_V2_OUTER_RULE_ID,
> >> +				      match->encap->fw_id);
> >> +		MCDI_STRUCT_SET_DWORD(match_crit, MAE_FIELD_MASK_VALUE_PAIRS_V2_OUTER_RULE_ID_MASK,
> >> +				      U32_MAX);
> >> +		/* enc_keyid (VNI/VSID) is not part of the encap_match */
> >> +		MCDI_STRUCT_SET_DWORD_BE(match_crit, MAE_FIELD_MASK_VALUE_PAIRS_V2_ENC_VNET_ID_BE,
> >> +					 match->value.enc_keyid);
> >> +		MCDI_STRUCT_SET_DWORD_BE(match_crit, MAE_FIELD_MASK_VALUE_PAIRS_V2_ENC_VNET_ID_BE_MASK,
> >> +					 match->mask.enc_keyid);
> > 
> > Is it intentional that value.enc_keyid is used as the mask.
> 
> But it isn't.  mask.enc_keyid is.

Indeed it is :)