netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 06/13] net/mlx5: fs, add HWS modify header API function

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <03c22e72-5cfe-4261-8572-b9951a92d224@nvidia.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2025 18:54:19 +0200
From: Moshe Shemesh <moshe@...dia.com>
To: Przemek Kitszel <przemyslaw.kitszel@...el.com>
CC: <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...dia.com>, Tariq Toukan
	<tariqt@...dia.com>, Gal Pressman <gal@...dia.com>, Leon Romanovsky
	<leonro@...dia.com>, Mark Bloch <mbloch@...dia.com>, Yevgeny Kliteynik
	<kliteyn@...dia.com>, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Jakub Kicinski
	<kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Eric Dumazet
	<edumazet@...gle.com>, Andrew Lunn <andrew+netdev@...n.ch>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 06/13] net/mlx5: fs, add HWS modify header API
 function



On 1/8/2025 4:58 PM, Przemek Kitszel wrote:
> 
> On 1/8/25 13:04, Moshe Shemesh wrote:
> 
>>>> +static int mlx5_cmd_hws_modify_header_alloc(struct
>>>> mlx5_flow_root_namespace *ns,
>>>> +                                         u8 namespace, u8 num_actions,
>>>> +                                         void *modify_actions,
>>>> +                                         struct mlx5_modify_hdr
>>>> *modify_hdr)
>>>> +{
>>>> +     struct mlx5_fs_hws_actions_pool *hws_pool = &ns-
>>>> >fs_hws_context.hws_pool;
>>>> +     struct mlx5hws_action_mh_pattern pattern = {};
>>>> +     struct mlx5_fs_hws_mh *mh_data = NULL;
>>>> +     struct mlx5hws_action *hws_action;
>>>> +     struct mlx5_fs_pool *pool;
>>>> +     unsigned long i, cnt = 0;
>>>> +     bool known_pattern;
>>>> +     int err;
>>>> +
>>>> +     pattern.sz = MLX5_UN_SZ_BYTES(set_add_copy_action_in_auto) *
>>>> num_actions;
>>>> +     pattern.data = modify_actions;
>>>> +
>>>> +     known_pattern = false;
>>>> +     xa_for_each(&hws_pool->mh_pools, i, pool) {
>>>> +             if (mlx5_fs_hws_mh_pool_match(pool, &pattern)) {
>>>> +                     known_pattern = true;
>>>> +                     break;
>>>> +             }
>>>> +             cnt++;
>>>> +     }
>>>> +
>>>> +     if (!known_pattern) {
>>>> +             pool = create_mh_pool(ns->dev, &pattern, &hws_pool-
>>>> >mh_pools, cnt);
>>>> +             if (IS_ERR(pool))
>>>> +                     return PTR_ERR(pool);
>>>> +     }
>>>
>>> if, by any chance, .mh_pools was empty, next line has @pool
>>> uninitialized
>>
>> If .mh_pools was empty then known_pattern is false and create_mh_pool()
>> is called which returns valid pool or error.
>>
> oh yeah, sorry for the confusion!
> 
> BTW, if you don't need the index in the array for other purposes, then
> "allocating xarray" would manage it for you

Yes, I see what you are saying, it can work here.
But in this case I need the loop to look for the pattern anyway, so once 
loop ended without finding the pattern I know what is the next index 
instead of having xa_alloc() to find next index.