netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v3 2/2] net/mlx5: implement swp_l4_csum

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: <20251110154643.66d15800@kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2025 15:46:43 -0800
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
Cc: Saeed Mahameed <saeed@...nel.org>, Daniel Zahka
 <daniel.zahka@...il.com>, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric
 Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Simon
 Horman <horms@...nel.org>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, Srujana Challa
 <schalla@...vell.com>, Bharat Bhushan <bbhushan2@...vell.com>, Herbert Xu
 <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>, Brett Creeley <brett.creeley@....com>,
 Andrew Lunn <andrew+netdev@...n.ch>, Michael Chan
 <michael.chan@...adcom.com>, Pavan Chebbi <pavan.chebbi@...adcom.com>, Tony
 Nguyen <anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com>, Przemek Kitszel
 <przemyslaw.kitszel@...el.com>, Sunil Goutham <sgoutham@...vell.com>, Linu
 Cherian <lcherian@...vell.com>, Geetha sowjanya <gakula@...vell.com>, Jerin
 Jacob <jerinj@...vell.com>, hariprasad <hkelam@...vell.com>, Subbaraya
 Sundeep <sbhatta@...vell.com>, Tariq Toukan <tariqt@...dia.com>, Saeed
 Mahameed <saeedm@...dia.com>, Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>, Mark Bloch
 <mbloch@...dia.com>, Ido Schimmel <idosch@...dia.com>, Petr Machata
 <petrm@...dia.com>, Manish Chopra <manishc@...vell.com>, Maxime Coquelin
 <mcoquelin.stm32@...il.com>, Alexandre Torgue
 <alexandre.torgue@...s.st.com>, Siddharth Vadapalli <s-vadapalli@...com>,
 Roger Quadros <rogerq@...nel.org>, Loic Poulain
 <loic.poulain@....qualcomm.com>, Sergey Ryazanov <ryazanov.s.a@...il.com>,
 Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>, Vladimir Oltean
 <olteanv@...il.com>, Michal Swiatkowski
 <michal.swiatkowski@...ux.intel.com>, Aleksandr Loktionov
 <aleksandr.loktionov@...el.com>, Dave Ertman <david.m.ertman@...el.com>,
 Vlad Dumitrescu <vdumitrescu@...dia.com>, "Russell King (Oracle)"
 <rmk+kernel@...linux.org.uk>, Alexander Sverdlin
 <alexander.sverdlin@...il.com>, Lorenzo Bianconi <lorenzo@...nel.org>,
 netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
 intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org, linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-stm32@...md-mailman.stormreply.com,
 linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-omap@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v3 2/2] net/mlx5: implement swp_l4_csum_mode
 via devlink params

On Sun, 9 Nov 2025 11:46:37 +0100 Jiri Pirko wrote:
> >So, I checked a couple of flows internally, and it seems this allows
> >some flexibility in the FW to decide later on which mode to pick,
> >based on other parameters, which practically means
> >"user has no preference on this param". Driver can only find out
> >after boot, when it reads the runtime capabilities, but still
> >this is a bug, by the time the driver reads this (in devlink), the
> >default value should've already been determined by FW, so FW must
> >return the actual runtime value. Which can only be one of the following  
> 
> I don't think it is correct to expose the "default" as a value.
> 
> On read, user should see the configured value, either "full_csum" or
> "l4_only". Reporting "default" to the user does not make any sense.
> On write, user should pass either "full_csum" or "l4_only". Why we would
> ever want to pass "default"?

FWIW I agree that this feels a bit odd. Should the default be a flag
attr? On get flag being present means the value is the FW default (no
override present). On set passing the flag means user wants to reset
to FW default (remove override)?

> Regardless this patch, since this is param to be reflected on fw reboot
> (permanent cmode), I think it would be nice to expose indication if
> param value passed to user currently affects the fw, or if it is going
> to be applied after fw reboot. Perhaps a simple bool attr would do?

IIUC we're basically talking about user having no information that 
the update is pending? Could this be done by the core? Core can do 
a ->get prior to calling ->set and if the ->set succeeds and 
cmode != runtime record that the update is pending?

That feels very separate from the series tho, there are 3 permanent
params in mlx5, already. Is there something that makes this one special?