netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 6/6] net: ethtool: add the ability to run ethtool_[gs]et

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: Thu, 20 Jun 2024 20:29:39 +0200
From: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
To: Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>
Cc: "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, 
	Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Ziwei Xiao <ziweixiao@...gle.com>, 
	Praveen Kaligineedi <pkaligineedi@...gle.com>, Harshitha Ramamurthy <hramamurthy@...gle.com>, 
	Willem de Bruijn <willemb@...gle.com>, Jeroen de Borst <jeroendb@...gle.com>, 
	Shailend Chand <shailend@...gle.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org, eric.dumazet@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 6/6] net: ethtool: add the ability to run
 ethtool_[gs]et_rxnfc() without RTNL

On Thu, Jun 20, 2024 at 7:45 PM Willem de Bruijn
<willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com> wrote:
>
> Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > For better scalability, drivers can prefer to implement their own locking schem
> > (for instance one mutex per port or queue) instead of relying on RTNL.
> >
> > This patch adds a new boolean field in ethtool_ops : rxnfc_parallel
> >
> > Drivers can opt-in to this new behavior.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
> > ---
> >  include/linux/ethtool.h |  2 ++
> >  net/ethtool/ioctl.c     | 43 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------
> >  2 files changed, 31 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/include/linux/ethtool.h b/include/linux/ethtool.h
> > index 6fd9107d3cc010dd2f1ecdb005c412145c461b6c..ee9b8054165361c9236186ff61f886e53cfa6b49 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/ethtool.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/ethtool.h
> > @@ -748,6 +748,7 @@ struct ethtool_rxfh_param {
> >   *   error code or zero.
> >   * @set_rxnfc: Set RX flow classification rules.  Returns a negative
> >   *   error code or zero.
> > + * @rxnfc_parallel: true if @set_rxnfc, @get_rxnfc and @get_rxfh do not need RTNL.
> >   * @flash_device: Write a firmware image to device's flash memory.
> >   *   Returns a negative error code or zero.
> >   * @reset: Reset (part of) the device, as specified by a bitmask of
> > @@ -907,6 +908,7 @@ struct ethtool_ops {
> >       int     (*get_rxnfc)(struct net_device *,
> >                            struct ethtool_rxnfc *, u32 *rule_locs);
> >       int     (*set_rxnfc)(struct net_device *, struct ethtool_rxnfc *);
> > +     bool    rxnfc_parallel;
>
> Would it make sense to make this a bit, as there already are u32 bits
> at the start of the struct, with a 29-bit gap?

Indeed, I will squash in V2 the following, thanks Willem.

diff --git a/include/linux/ethtool.h b/include/linux/ethtool.h
index ee9b8054165361c9236186ff61f886e53cfa6b49..2a385a9e5590ba4c629577c3679dd593d7d6e335
100644
--- a/include/linux/ethtool.h
+++ b/include/linux/ethtool.h
@@ -853,6 +853,7 @@ struct ethtool_ops {
        u32     cap_link_lanes_supported:1;
        u32     cap_rss_ctx_supported:1;
        u32     cap_rss_sym_xor_supported:1;
+       u32     rxnfc_parallel:1;
        u32     supported_coalesce_params;
        u32     supported_ring_params;
        void    (*get_drvinfo)(struct net_device *, struct ethtool_drvinfo *);
@@ -908,7 +909,6 @@ struct ethtool_ops {
        int     (*get_rxnfc)(struct net_device *,
                             struct ethtool_rxnfc *, u32 *rule_locs);
        int     (*set_rxnfc)(struct net_device *, struct ethtool_rxnfc *);
-       bool    rxnfc_parallel;
        int     (*flash_device)(struct net_device *, struct ethtool_flash *);
        int     (*reset)(struct net_device *, u32 *);
        u32     (*get_rxfh_key_size)(struct net_device *);