netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 1/6] flow_offload: add flow_rule_no_unsupp_control

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]

Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2024 10:40:51 +0200
From: Louis Peens <louis.peens@...igine.com>
To: Asbjørn Sloth Tønnesen <ast@...erby.net>
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
	Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
	Taras Chornyi <taras.chornyi@...ision.eu>,
	Woojung Huh <woojung.huh@...rochip.com>,
	UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Yanguo Li <yanguo.li@...igine.com>,
	oss-drivers@...igine.com, Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
	Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
	Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>,
	Edward Cree <ecree.xilinx@...il.com>,
	Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>,
	Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>, Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/6] flow_offload: add
 flow_rule_no_unsupp_control_flags()

On Mon, Apr 08, 2024 at 01:09:19PM +0000, Asbjørn Sloth Tønnesen wrote:
> [Some people who received this message don't often get email from ast@...erby.net. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
> 
> This helper can be used by drivers to check for the
> presence of unsupported control flags.
> 
> It mirrors the existing check done in sfc:
>   drivers/net/ethernet/sfc/tc.c +276
> 
> This is aimed at drivers, which implements some control flags.
> 
> This should also be used by drivers that implement all
> current flags, so that future flags will be unsupported
> by default.
> 
> Only compile-tested.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Asbjørn Sloth Tønnesen <ast@...erby.net>
> ---
>  include/net/flow_offload.h | 22 ++++++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 22 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/include/net/flow_offload.h b/include/net/flow_offload.h
> index 314087a5e1818..c1317b14da08c 100644
> --- a/include/net/flow_offload.h
> +++ b/include/net/flow_offload.h
> @@ -449,6 +449,28 @@ static inline bool flow_rule_match_key(const struct flow_rule *rule,
>         return dissector_uses_key(rule->match.dissector, key);
>  }
> 
> +/**
> + * flow_rule_no_unsupp_control_flags() - check for unsupported control flags
> + * @supp_flags: flags supported by driver
> + * @flags: flags present in rule
> + * @extack: The netlink extended ACK for reporting errors.
> + *
> + * Returns true if only supported control flags are set, false otherwise.
> + */
> +static inline bool flow_rule_no_unsupp_control_flags(const u32 supp_flags,
> +                                                    const u32 flags,
> +                                                    struct netlink_ext_ack *extack)
Thanks for the change Asbjørn, I like the series in general. I do have
some nitpicking with the naming of this function, the double negative
makes it a bit hard to read. Especially where it gets used, where it
then reads as:
    'if not no unsupported'

I think something like:
    'if not supported'
or
    'if unsupported'

will read much better - personally I think the first option is the best,
otherwise you might end up with 'if not unsupported', which is also
weird.

Some possible suggestions I can think of:
    flow_rule_control_flags_is_supp()
    flow_rule_is_supp_control_flags()
    flow_rule_check_supp_control_flags()

or perhaps some even better variant of this. I hope it's not just me, if
that's the case please feel free to ignore.