netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH net] net: taprio: Validate offload support using NETIF_F_HW_TC in hw

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: <e7c66c71-197c-4c1e-8a57-5cd95f96b7cc@amd.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2025 11:19:52 +0530
From: "Karumanchi, Vineeth" <vineeth@....com>
To: edumazet@...gle.com
Cc: vineeth.karumanchi@....com, git@....com, vinicius.gomes@...el.com,
 jhs@...atatu.com, xiyou.wangcong@...il.com, jiri@...nulli.us,
 davem@...emloft.net, kuba@...nel.org, pabeni@...hat.com, horms@...nel.org,
 netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH net] net: taprio: Validate offload support using
 NETIF_F_HW_TC in hw_features

Hi Eric,

On 7/29/2025 7:06 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
<...>
>>>> Note: Some drivers already set NETIF_F_HW_TC alongside .ndo_setup_tc.
>>>> Follow-up patches will be submitted to update remaining drivers if this
>>>> approach is accepted.
>>> Hi Vineeth
>>>
>>> Could you give more details ? "Some IP versions of a driver" and "Some
>>> drivers" are rather vague.
>> At present, I’m only familiar with the GEM IP, which supports TSN Qbv in
>> its later versions. The GEM implementations found in Zynq and ZynqMP
>> devices do not support TSN Qbv, whereas the updated versions integrated
>> into Versal devices do offer TSN Qbv support.
> Is this an out-of-tree driver ? I do not find macb_taprio_setup_replace()
> 
> I think most drivers should return -EOPNOTSUPP in this case.
> 


These are the patches of taprio implementation in macb.

https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20250722154111.1871292-4-vineeth.karumanchi@amd.com/

https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20250722154111.1871292-6-vineeth.karumanchi@amd.com/
Here’s a clearer and more polished version of your message:

  I initially considered adding the check in macb driver, but since it's 
a generic validation, I believe the ideal place for it would be within 
the TC framework.

But, I'm okay with adding the check in macb driver.

Thanks
-- 
🙏 vineeth