netdev - Re: [PATCH v1 net-next 6/6] net: ena: Add a field for no interrupt moderation update 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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20240508083317.62897ef1@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 8 May 2024 08:33:17 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: "Arinzon, David" <darinzon@...zon.com>
Cc: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, "netdev@...r.kernel.org"
 <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, "Woodhouse, David" <dwmw@...zon.co.uk>,
 "Machulsky, Zorik" <zorik@...zon.com>, "Matushevsky, Alexander"
 <matua@...zon.com>, "Bshara, Saeed" <saeedb@...zon.com>, "Wilson, Matt"
 <msw@...zon.com>, "Liguori, Anthony" <aliguori@...zon.com>, "Bshara, Nafea"
 <nafea@...zon.com>, "Belgazal, Netanel" <netanel@...zon.com>, "Saidi, Ali"
 <alisaidi@...zon.com>, "Herrenschmidt, Benjamin" <benh@...zon.com>,
 "Kiyanovski, Arthur" <akiyano@...zon.com>, "Dagan, Noam"
 <ndagan@...zon.com>, "Agroskin, Shay" <shayagr@...zon.com>, "Itzko, Shahar"
 <itzko@...zon.com>, "Abboud, Osama" <osamaabb@...zon.com>, "Ostrovsky,
 Evgeny" <evostrov@...zon.com>, "Tabachnik, Ofir" <ofirt@...zon.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 net-next 6/6] net: ena: Add a field for no interrupt
 moderation update action

On Wed, 8 May 2024 05:55:50 +0000 Arinzon, David wrote:
> This is a true/false indicator, it doesn't require history/previous value to be considered.
> Therefore, not sure I see the how |= can help us in the logic here.
> The flag is set here to true if during the interrupt moderation update, which is, in this flow,
> triggered by an ethtool operation, the moderation value has changed from the currently
> configurated one.

I couldn't locate an immediate application of the new value in 
the ethtool flow. So the question is whether the user can call
update back to back, with the same settings. First time flag
would be set and second time cleared.

Also the whole thing appears to be devoid of locking or any
consideration of concurrency.