netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 3/3] net: dsa: ocelot: check policer entry

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: <f65fa8c9-651b-4a38-b1aa-bb923011f450@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2026 12:20:02 +0100
From: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
To: David Yang <mmyangfl@...il.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com>,
 Claudiu Manoil <claudiu.manoil@....com>,
 Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>,
 UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com, Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
 "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
 Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>,
 Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 3/3] net: dsa: ocelot: check policer entry

On 1/26/26 7:13 AM, David Yang wrote:
> rate_bytes_per_sec might be 0, check for it.
> 
> Signed-off-by: David Yang <mmyangfl@...il.com>
> ---
>  drivers/net/dsa/ocelot/felix.c | 4 ++++
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/net/dsa/ocelot/felix.c b/drivers/net/dsa/ocelot/felix.c
> index 9e5ede932b42..fb2d02ff0fe7 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/dsa/ocelot/felix.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/dsa/ocelot/felix.c
> @@ -2011,6 +2011,10 @@ static int felix_port_policer_add(struct dsa_switch *ds, int port,
>  		.burst = policer->burst,
>  	};
>  
> +	if (dsa_mall_policer_tc_entry_type(policer) !=
> +	    DSA_MALL_POLICER_TC_KNOWN)
> +		return -EOPNOTSUPP;

I'm not sure this strict mode is what we want or even we can apply it
now: it could cause functional regression with setup previously
completing successfully in presence of 'new' params and working to some
degree and now failing to start.

Generally speaking some/most offloads are free to ignore
tunable/parameter not available in the H/W.

I think a way to opt-in the new behavior could help.

/P