netdev - Re: [RFC net-next 19/22] eth: bnxt: use queue op config validate

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: <20250612071028.4f7c5756@kernel.org>
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2025 07:10:28 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Dragos Tatulea <dtatulea@...dia.com>
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,
 jdamato@...tly.com, michael.chan@...adcom.com
Subject: Re: [RFC net-next 19/22] eth: bnxt: use queue op config validate

On Thu, 12 Jun 2025 11:56:26 +0000 Dragos Tatulea wrote:
> For the hypothetical situation when the user configures a larger buffer
> than the ring size * MTU. Should the check happen in validate or should
> the max buffer size be dynamic depending on ring size and MTU?

Hm, why does the ring size come into the calculation?

I don't think it's a practical configuration, so it should be perfectly
fine for the driver to reject it. But in principle if user wants to
configure a 128 entry ring with 1MB buffers.. I guess they must have 
a lot of DRAM to waste, but other than that I don't see a reason to
stop them within the core?

Documenting sounds good, just wanna make sure I understand the potential
ambiguity.