netdev - Re: [RFC net-next 13/22] net: add queue config validation callback

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: <aAf5I3kKrf7l5oym@LQ3V64L9R2>
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2025 13:16:35 -0700
From: Joe Damato <jdamato@...tly.com>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc: davem@...emloft.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org, edumazet@...gle.com,
	pabeni@...hat.com, andrew+netdev@...n.ch, horms@...nel.org,
	donald.hunter@...il.com, sdf@...ichev.me, almasrymina@...gle.com,
	dw@...idwei.uk, asml.silence@...il.com, ap420073@...il.com,
	dtatulea@...dia.com, michael.chan@...adcom.com
Subject: Re: [RFC net-next 13/22] net: add queue config validation callback

On Mon, Apr 21, 2025 at 03:28:18PM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:

> The "trick" of passing a negative index is a bit ugly, we may
> want to revisit if it causes confusion and bugs. Existing drivers
> don't care about the index so it "just works".

FWIW: I thought some drivers use the "-1 means all queues" trick for
things internally (I thought I saw at least one driver use it for
per-queue vs NIC-wide coalesce settings?) so maybe it isn't *that*
strange

> --- a/net/core/netdev_config.c
> +++ b/net/core/netdev_config.c
> @@ -99,3 +99,23 @@ void netdev_queue_config(struct net_device *dev, int rxq,
>  	__netdev_queue_config(dev, rxq, qcfg, true);
>  }
>  EXPORT_SYMBOL(netdev_queue_config);
> +
> +int netdev_queue_config_revalidate(struct net_device *dev,
> +				   struct netlink_ext_ack *extack)
> +{
> +	const struct netdev_queue_mgmt_ops *qops = dev->queue_mgmt_ops;
> +	struct netdev_queue_config qcfg;
> +	int i, err;
> +
> +	if (!qops || !qops->ndo_queue_cfg_validate)
> +		return 0;
> +
> +	for (i = -1; i < (int)dev->real_num_rx_queues; i++) {

Not gonna lie: this looks weird. But maybe all that matters is that
people following this changeset are OK with it?