netdev - RE: [PATCH v1 net-next] net: dsa: Allow only up to two HSR HW offloaded ports for KSZ9477

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, 18 Jun 2024 14:31:28 +0000
From: <Woojung.Huh@...rochip.com>
To: <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>, <andrew@...n.ch>
CC: <lukma@...x.de>, <olteanv@...il.com>, <kuba@...nel.org>,
	<netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <pabeni@...hat.com>, <edumazet@...gle.com>,
	<davem@...emloft.net>, <o.rempel@...gutronix.de>,
	<Tristram.Ha@...rochip.com>, <bigeasy@...utronix.de>, <horms@...nel.org>,
	<ricardo@...liere.net>, <casper.casan@...il.com>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v1 net-next] net: dsa: Allow only up to two HSR HW
 offloaded ports for KSZ9477

Hi Dan & Andrew,

> On Tue, Jun 18, 2024 at 03:52:23PM +0200, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> > > diff --git a/drivers/net/dsa/microchip/ksz_common.c
> b/drivers/net/dsa/microchip/ksz_common.c
> > > index 2818e24e2a51..181e81af3a78 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/net/dsa/microchip/ksz_common.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/net/dsa/microchip/ksz_common.c
> > > @@ -3906,6 +3906,11 @@ static int ksz_hsr_join(struct dsa_switch *ds,
> int port, struct net_device *hsr,
> > >             return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> > >     }
> > >
> > > +   if (hweight8(dev->hsr_ports) > 1) {
> > > +           NL_SET_ERR_MSG_MOD(extack, "Cannot offload more than two
> ports (in use=0x%x)", dev->hsr_ports);
> > > +           return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> > > +   }
> >
> > Hi Dan
> >
> > I don't know HSR to well, but this is offloading to hardware, to
> > accelerate what Linux is already doing in software. It should be, if
> > the hardware says it cannot do it, software will continue to do the
> > job. So the extack message should never be seen.
> 
> Ah.  Okay.  However the rest of the function prints similar messages
> and so probably we could remove those error messages as well.  To be
> honest, I just wanted something which functioned as a comment and
> mentioned "two ports".  Perhaps the condition would be more clear as
> >= 2 instead of > 1?
> 

I'm not a HSR expert and so could be a dummy question.

I think this case (upto 2 HSR port offload) is different from other offload error.
Others are checking whether offload is possible or not, so SW HSR can kick in
when -EOPNOTSUPP returns. However, this happens when joining 3rd (2+) port
with hardware offload is enabled.
It is still working two ports are in HW HSR offload and next ports are in SW HSR?

Thanks.
Woojung