netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 6/6] eth: sfc: falcon: migrate to new RXFH callbacks

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: <20250613075010.0b59564d@kernel.org>
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2025 07:50:10 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Edward Cree <ecree.xilinx@...il.com>
Cc: davem@...emloft.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org, edumazet@...gle.com,
 pabeni@...hat.com, andrew+netdev@...n.ch, horms@...nel.org,
 bharat@...lsio.com, benve@...co.com, satishkh@...co.com,
 claudiu.manoil@....com, vladimir.oltean@....com, wei.fang@....com,
 xiaoning.wang@....com, anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com,
 przemyslaw.kitszel@...el.com, bryan.whitehead@...rochip.com,
 rosenp@...il.com, imx@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 6/6] eth: sfc: falcon: migrate to new RXFH
 callbacks

On Fri, 13 Jun 2025 14:44:40 +0100 Edward Cree wrote:
> So granted that you're only moving code, but looking at this it doesn't
>  actually make sense, since every path that sets info->data to nonzero
>  also sets min_revision, so why not just do the ef4_nic_rev() check at
>  the start?  Answer, from git log spelunking, is that when this code was
>  shared with Siena, EFX_REV_SIENA_A0 supported IPv6 here.

Ack, I was tempted to clean this up, but it felt slightly outside of 
the objective. Looks like I need to respin for enetc - I can change 
it in v2 if you'd like?

> Have a
> Reviewed-By: Edward Cree <ecree.xilinx@...il.com>
> ... but this patch could be followed-up with a simplification to put
> 	if (ef4_nic_rev(efx) < EF4_REV_FALCON_B0)
> 		return 0;
>  before the switch and get rid of min_revision.
> Falcon is long since end-of-life, so I don't have any NICs and can't run
>  any tests, which maybe means the smart thing to do is just to leave well
>  alone and not touch this code beyond your factoring.
> 
> *twitches with barely-suppressed urge to fix it anyway*
> -ed
> 
> PS: I spent about two hours reading device documentation from 2008
>  because I thought it said Falcon did 4-tuple hashing on UDP too.  For
>  the record: the 'Falcon hash' was broken (in some unspecified way), so
>  falcon_init_rx_cfg() selects the Toeplitz hash which does indeed only
>  consume port numbers on these devices if protocol is TCP.  And I will
>  never get that time back :/

:D