[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZGeElc6Cd9k2URB5@corigine.com>
Date: Fri, 19 May 2023 16:15:49 +0200
From: Simon Horman <simon.horman@...igine.com>
To: Ido Schimmel <idosch@...dia.com>
Cc: nbd@....name, netdev@...r.kernel.org, bridge@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
davem@...emloft.net, kuba@...nel.org, pabeni@...hat.com,
edumazet@...gle.com, razor@...ckwall.org, roopa@...dia.com,
taras.chornyi@...ision.eu, saeedm@...dia.com, leon@...nel.org,
petrm@...dia.com, vladimir.oltean@....com, claudiu.manoil@....com,
alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com, UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com,
jhs@...atatu.com, xiyou.wangcong@...il.com, jiri@...nulli.us,
taspelund@...dia.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 3/5] flow_offload: Reject matching on layer 2
miss
On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 05:10:58PM +0300, Ido Schimmel wrote:
> On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 01:33:00PM +0200, Simon Horman wrote:
> > On Thu, May 18, 2023 at 02:33:26PM +0300, Ido Schimmel wrote:
> > > Adjust drivers that support the 'FLOW_DISSECTOR_KEY_META' key to reject
> > > filters that try to match on the newly added layer 2 miss option. Add an
> > > extack message to clearly communicate the failure reason to user space.
> >
> > Hi Ido,
> >
> > FLOW_DISSECTOR_KEY_META is also used in the following.
> > Perhaps they don't need updating. But perhaps it is worth mentioning why.
>
> Good point.
>
> >
> > * drivers/net/ethernet/mediatek/mtk_ppe_offload.c
>
> This driver does not seem to do anything with this key. TBH, I'm not
> sure what is the purpose of this hunk:
>
> if (flow_rule_match_key(rule, FLOW_DISSECTOR_KEY_META)) {
> struct flow_match_meta match;
>
> flow_rule_match_meta(rule, &match);
> } else {
> return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> }
>
> Felix, can you comment?
> Original patch:
> https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20230518113328.1952135-4-idosch@nvidia.com/
FWIIW, I agree with your analysis here.
> > * drivers/net/ethernet/netronome/nfp/flower/conntrack.c
>
> My understanding is that this code is for netfilter offload (not tc)
> which does not use the new bit. Adding a check would therefore be dead
> code. I don't mind adding a check or mentioning in the commit message
> why I didn't add one. Let me know what you prefer.
Let's go with a comment in the commit message.
Thanks.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists