netdev - Re: [PATCH v2 net-next 1/2] octeontx2-af: Knobs for NPC default rule counters

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: <20240914081317.GA8319@kernel.org>
Date: Sat, 14 Sep 2024 09:13:17 +0100
From: Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>
To: Linu Cherian <lcherian@...vell.com>
Cc: davem@...emloft.net, sgoutham@...vell.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, gakula@...vell.com,
	hkelam@...vell.com, sbhatta@...vell.com, edumazet@...gle.com,
	kuba@...nel.org, pabeni@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 net-next 1/2] octeontx2-af: Knobs for NPC default rule
 counters

On Thu, Sep 12, 2024 at 09:44:49PM +0530, Linu Cherian wrote:
> Add devlink knobs to enable/disable counters on NPC
> default rule entries.
> 
> Introduce lowlevel variant of rvu_mcam_remove/add_counter_from/to_rule
> for better code reuse, which assumes necessary locks are taken at
> higher level.
> 
> Sample command to enable default rule counters:
> devlink dev param set <dev> name npc_def_rule_cntr value true cmode runtime
> 
> Sample command to read the counter:
> cat /sys/kernel/debug/cn10k/npc/mcam_rules
> 
> Signed-off-by: Linu Cherian <lcherian@...vell.com>
> ---
> Changelog from v1:
> Removed wrong mutex_unlock invocations.

Hi Linu,

This patch seems to be doing two things:

1) Refactoring some functions to have locking and non-locking variants.
   By LoC this is appears the bulk of the code changed in this patch.
   It also appears to be straightforward.

2) Adding devlink knobs

   As this is a user-facing change it probably requires a deeper review
   than 1)

I would suggest, that for review, it would be very nice to split
1) and 2) into separate patches. Maybe including a note in the patch
for 1) that the refactor will be used in the following patch for 2).

As for the code changes themselves, I did look over them,
and I didn't see any problems.