netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v4 8/9] net: ethernet: ti: am65-cpsw: add network flow classification support

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: <32e6bb4b-711c-455e-bfa4-2c0b2011e1ec@kernel.org>
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2025 16:44:49 +0300
From: Roger Quadros <rogerq@...nel.org>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc: Siddharth Vadapalli <s-vadapalli@...com>,
 Andrew Lunn <andrew+netdev@...n.ch>, "David S. Miller"
 <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
 Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
 danishanwar@...com, srk@...com, linux-omap@...r.kernel.org,
 netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v4 8/9] net: ethernet: ti: am65-cpsw: add network
 flow classification support

On 13/08/2025 17:48, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Aug 2025 16:49:27 +0300 Roger Quadros wrote:
>> On 17/05/2025 04:29, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
>>> On Wed, 14 May 2025 15:04:28 +0300 Roger Quadros wrote:  
>>>> The TRM doesn't mention anything about order of evaluation of the
>>>> classifier rules however it does mention in [1]
>>>> "if multiple classifier matches occur, the highest match
>>>> with thread enable bit set will be used."  
>>>
>>> So we're not sure how to maintain the user requested ordering?  
>>
>> Currently we are using the user/ethtool provided location as is.
>>
>>> Am I reading this correctly? If so then ..
>>>   
>>>> +	if (fs->location == RX_CLS_LOC_ANY ||  
>>>
>>> .. why are we rejecting LOC_ANY?   
>>
>> Because driver doesn't have logic to decide the location and relies on ethtool to
>> decide it if user doesn't supply it.
> 
> The location supplied by the user may have semantic significance.
> IOW locations may be interpreted as priorities.

OK. Is there any convention on location vs priority for user or it is driver dependent?
i.e. Does higher location mean higher priority?

> It's better to support LOC_ANY and add the 10 lines of code to
> allocate the id in the driver..

OK.

I did more tests and it seems that higher locations in the classifier override the lower locations.

With this new information, what is the best approach?

I can add support for LOC_ANY with logic to find first available free location.
If driver supports LOC_ANY, does driver also need to support explicit location supplied by user? In this case I think user convention and driver convention of location vs priority must match.

-- 
cheers,
-roger