netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 08/15] net/mlx5e: SHAMPO, Skipping on duplicate flush of the same SHAMPO SKB

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: <9957a6c3740e76c61b979038c6e984f9987bbd4c.camel@nvidia.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2024 17:55:24 +0000
From: Dragos Tatulea <dtatulea@...dia.com>
To: Tariq Toukan <tariqt@...dia.com>, "horms@...nel.org" <horms@...nel.org>
CC: "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>, "netdev@...r.kernel.org"
	<netdev@...r.kernel.org>, Gal Pressman <gal@...dia.com>, Yoray Zack
	<yorayz@...dia.com>, Leon Romanovsky <leonro@...dia.com>, "kuba@...nel.org"
	<kuba@...nel.org>, "edumazet@...gle.com" <edumazet@...gle.com>, Saeed
 Mahameed <saeedm@...dia.com>, "pabeni@...hat.com" <pabeni@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 08/15] net/mlx5e: SHAMPO, Skipping on duplicate
 flush of the same SHAMPO SKB

On Wed, 2024-06-05 at 14:48 +0100, Simon Horman wrote:
> On Tue, May 28, 2024 at 05:28:00PM +0300, Tariq Toukan wrote:
> > From: Yoray Zack <yorayz@...dia.com>
> > 
> > SHAMPO SKB can be flushed in mlx5e_shampo_complete_rx_cqe().
> > If the SKB was flushed, rq->hw_gro_data->skb was also set to NULL.
> > 
> > We can skip on flushing the SKB in mlx5e_shampo_flush_skb
> > if rq->hw_gro_data->skb == NULL.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Yoray Zack <yorayz@...dia.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Tariq Toukan <tariqt@...dia.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/en_rx.c | 2 +-
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/en_rx.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/en_rx.c
> > index 1e3a5b2afeae..3f76c33aada0 100644
> > --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/en_rx.c
> > +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/en_rx.c
> > @@ -2334,7 +2334,7 @@ static void mlx5e_handle_rx_cqe_mpwrq_shampo(struct mlx5e_rq *rq, struct mlx5_cq
> >  	}
> >  
> >  	mlx5e_shampo_complete_rx_cqe(rq, cqe, cqe_bcnt, *skb);
> > -	if (flush)
> > +	if (flush && rq->hw_gro_data->skb)
> >  		mlx5e_shampo_flush_skb(rq, cqe, match);
> 
> nit: It seems awkward to reach inside rq like this
>      when mlx5e_shampo_flush_skb already deals with the skb in question.
> 
We don't need to reach inside the rq, we could use *skb instead (skb is &rq-
>hw_gro_data->skb). *skb is used often in this function.

>      Would it make esnse for the NULL skb check to
>      be moved inside mlx5e_shampo_flush_skb() ?
> 

Thanks,
Dragos