netdev - Re: [PATCH RFC net-next 7/7] netdev_features: convert NETIF_F_FCOE_MTU to IFF_FCOE

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: <1f14cb75-ee6b-4a7d-9041-23a8cfcd8476@intel.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2024 12:28:08 +0200
From: Alexander Lobakin <aleksander.lobakin@...el.com>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
CC: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet
	<edumazet@...gle.com>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, David Ahern
	<dsahern@...nel.org>, Xuan Zhuo <xuanzhuo@...ux.alibaba.com>, Andrew Lunn
	<andrew@...n.ch>, <nex.sw.ncis.osdt.itp.upstreaming@...el.com>,
	<netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC net-next 7/7] netdev_features: convert
 NETIF_F_FCOE_MTU to IFF_FCOE_MTU

From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2024 19:38:06 -0700

> On Fri,  5 Apr 2024 15:37:31 +0200 Alexander Lobakin wrote:
>> Ability to handle maximum FCoE frames of 2158 bytes can never be changed
>> and thus more of an attribute, not a toggleable feature.
>> Move it from netdev_features_t to netdev_priv_flags and free one more
>> feature bit.
> 
>> @@ -1700,6 +1701,7 @@ enum netdev_priv_flags {
>>  	IFF_NETNS_LOCAL			= BIT_ULL(35),
>>  	IFF_HIGHDMA			= BIT_ULL(36),
>>  	IFF_VLAN_CHALLENGED		= BIT_ULL(37),
>> +	IFF_FCOE_MTU			= BIT_ULL(38),
>>  	IFF_LOGICAL			= IFF_NO_QUEUE | IFF_LLTX,
>>  	IFF_ONE_FOR_ALL			= IFF_HIGHDMA | IFF_VLAN_CHALLENGED,
>>  	IFF_ALL_FOR_ALL			= IFF_XMIT_DST_RELEASE |
> 
> Any reason not to make it a bitfield? I haven't looked at the longer
> patches but this one seems to be used like a basic bool.

This whole enum could be made as bitfields, should we convert it? Would
be a big patch tho ._.

> 
>> diff --git a/net/ethtool/common.c b/net/ethtool/common.c
>> index 2de4dd5a30de..71e36e1a1b15 100644
>> --- a/net/ethtool/common.c
>> +++ b/net/ethtool/common.c
>> @@ -47,7 +47,6 @@ const char netdev_features_strings[NETDEV_FEATURE_COUNT][ETH_GSTRING_LEN] = {
>>  
>>  	[NETIF_F_FCOE_CRC_BIT] =         "tx-checksum-fcoe-crc",
>>  	[NETIF_F_SCTP_CRC_BIT] =        "tx-checksum-sctp",
>> -	[NETIF_F_FCOE_MTU_BIT] =         "fcoe-mtu",
> 
> 
> But this definitely _is_ a uAPI change, right?

Why?

> Some analysis why this is fine and why avoiding the problem isn't worth
> it in the cover letter would be great.
> 
>>  	[NETIF_F_NTUPLE_BIT] =           "rx-ntuple-filter",
>>  	[NETIF_F_RXHASH_BIT] =           "rx-hashing",
>>  	[NETIF_F_RXCSUM_BIT] =           "rx-checksum",

Thanks,
Olek