netdev - Re: [PATCH v6 net-next 1/2] net: Prevent RPS table overwrite for active flows

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: <CACLgkEYKCt6mohhqFat+xaJOYd0Rrgz-ZK8FKQkZ2dzSwXhXQw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2025 09:55:00 +0530
From: Krishna Kumar <krikku@...il.com>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com, 
	tom@...bertland.com, pabeni@...hat.com, horms@...nel.org, sdf@...ichev.me, 
	kuniyu@...gle.com, ahmed.zaki@...el.com, aleksander.lobakin@...el.com, 
	atenart@...nel.org, krishna.ku@...pkart.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 net-next 1/2] net: Prevent RPS table overwrite for
 active flows

Ack. Thanks for your feedback.

Regards,
- Krishna

On Mon, Jul 28, 2025 at 9:31 PM Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 28 Jul 2025 07:43:25 +0530 Krishna Kumar wrote:
> > > > +                             if (hash != READ_ONCE(tmp_rflow->hash) ||
> > > > +                                 next_cpu == tmp_cpu) {
> > > > +                                     /*
> > > > +                                      * Don't unnecessarily reprogram if:
> > > > +                                      * 1. This slot has an active different
> > > > +                                      *    flow.
> > > > +                                      * 2. This slot has the same flow (very
> > > > +                                      *    likely but not guaranteed) and
> > > > +                                      *    the rx-queue# did not change.
> > > > +                                      */
> >
> > I took some time to figure out the different paths here as it was a
> > new area for me, hence I put this comment. Shall I keep it as the
> > condition is not very intuitive?
>
> To me it just restates the condition, so not worth keeping the comment.
> You could add the explanation of the logic with more justifications to
> the commit message if you'd like? (perhaps you have it there already..)