netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 2/3] net: sparx5: add support for tc flower mirred action.

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2024 07:58:13 +0000
From: Daniel Machon <daniel.machon@...rochip.com>
To: Horatiu Vultur <horatiu.vultur@...rochip.com>
CC: Lars Povlsen <lars.povlsen@...rochip.com>, Steen Hegelund
	<Steen.Hegelund@...rochip.com>, <UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com>, "David S.
 Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, "Jakub
 Kicinski" <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 2/3] net: sparx5: add support for tc flower
 mirred action.

> The 04/03/2024 20:41, Daniel Machon wrote:
> 
> Hi Daniel,
> 
> ...
> 
> > +static int sparx5_tc_action_mirred(struct vcap_admin *admin,
> > +				   struct vcap_rule *vrule,
> > +				   struct flow_cls_offload *fco,
> > +				   struct flow_action_entry *act)
> > +{
> > +	struct vcap_u72_action ports = {0};
> 
> Maybe this is just a preferences, but usually we use memset instead of {0};

Yes, I think this falls under preference. I'd like to keep this one as
is.

> 
> > +	int err;
> > +
> > +	if (admin->vtype != VCAP_TYPE_IS0 && admin->vtype != VCAP_TYPE_IS2) {
> > +		NL_SET_ERR_MSG_MOD(fco->common.extack,
> > +				   "Mirror action not supported in this VCAP");
> > +		return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	err = vcap_rule_add_action_u32(vrule, VCAP_AF_MASK_MODE,
> > +				       SPX5_PMM_OR_DSTMASK);
> > +	if (err)
> > +		return err;
> > +
> > +	sparx5_tc_flower_set_port_mask(&ports, act->dev);
> > +
> > +	err = vcap_rule_add_action_u72(vrule, VCAP_AF_PORT_MASK, &ports);
> > +	if (err)
> > +		return err;
> 
> You can just return directly the return value from vcap_rule_add_action_u72
> Something like:
> 
> return vcap_rule_add_action_u72(...)
>

Yes, seems like a reasonable change :-) I need to respin anyway, since
NIPA is complaining about something I didn't catch in my local run. Will
incorporate changes in v2 - thanks.

> > +
> > +	return 0;
> > +}
> > -- 
> > 2.34.1
> > 
> 
> -- 
> /Horatiu