From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A154C433E0 for ; Tue, 19 May 2020 18:26:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BFB020578 for ; Tue, 19 May 2020 18:26:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728144AbgESS0y (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 May 2020 14:26:54 -0400 Received: from dispatch1-us1.ppe-hosted.com ([148.163.129.52]:33900 "EHLO dispatch1-us1.ppe-hosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726502AbgESS0y (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 May 2020 14:26:54 -0400 Received: from mx1-us1.ppe-hosted.com (unknown [10.7.65.64]) by dispatch1-us1.ppe-hosted.com (PPE Hosted ESMTP Server) with ESMTP id 84A96600B0; Tue, 19 May 2020 18:26:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from us4-mdac16-45.ut7.mdlocal (unknown [10.7.64.27]) by mx1-us1.ppe-hosted.com (PPE Hosted ESMTP Server) with ESMTP id 82E21200A4; Tue, 19 May 2020 18:26:53 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Proofpoint Essentials engine Received: from mx1-us1.ppe-hosted.com (unknown [10.7.66.30]) by mx1-us1.ppe-hosted.com (PPE Hosted ESMTP Server) with ESMTPS id EE7A422005F; Tue, 19 May 2020 18:26:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from webmail.solarflare.com (uk.solarflare.com [193.34.186.16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1-us1.ppe-hosted.com (PPE Hosted ESMTP Server) with ESMTPS id 647B2100079; Tue, 19 May 2020 18:26:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.17.20.203] (10.17.20.203) by ukex01.SolarFlarecom.com (10.17.10.4) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1395.4; Tue, 19 May 2020 19:26:46 +0100 Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2] net: flow_offload: simplify hw stats check handling To: Pablo Neira Ayuso CC: , , , , References: <20200519171923.GA16785@salvia> <6013b7ce-48c9-7169-c945-01b2226638e4@solarflare.com> <20200519173508.GA17141@salvia> From: Edward Cree Message-ID: Date: Tue, 19 May 2020 19:26:42 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.2.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20200519173508.GA17141@salvia> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Language: en-GB X-Originating-IP: [10.17.20.203] X-ClientProxiedBy: ocex03.SolarFlarecom.com (10.20.40.36) To ukex01.SolarFlarecom.com (10.17.10.4) X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: SMEX-12.5.0.1300-8.5.1020-25428.003 X-TM-AS-Result: No-7.974500-8.000000-10 X-TMASE-MatchedRID: HXSqh3WYKfu8rRvefcjeTR4ejJMDGBzF69aS+7/zbj9RXC4cX65cJJQp 8P1TdmSa6p2MwhnGDkBHloHIAzso1UlNkNzbYQ+3Iwk7p1qp3JbdYVrFVbszaMuSXx71bvSLcID y7DqlE8v/Jhd10Wr/0M3UceiBmxhNuAzO9oQibGf/Te3t5cJMGx5FmvZzFEQustuan4ScYgrJdO SGA6s0i13zi/eJ6s3jRV9DrFlwADH+Bakt0aHHFvjQkA7rdCuF6roloi3VB6JE/s+hW1mwCKPFj JEFr+olSXhbxZVQ5H+OhzOa6g8Krb+b/roeYfX8iBn8yIHai+Ci/kb9xHdg/puVhI58xtMJxV1H IZ8FcTU= X-TM-AS-User-Approved-Sender: Yes X-TM-AS-User-Blocked-Sender: No X-TMASE-Result: 10--7.974500-8.000000 X-TMASE-Version: SMEX-12.5.0.1300-8.5.1020-25428.003 X-MDID: 1589912813-iVhqZSJFWdM3 Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org On 19/05/2020 18:35, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote: > Did you test your patch with netfilter? I don't think. As I mentioned in v1 (and should have repeated on v2, sorry) this is  compile tested only, as I don't have the hardware to test it.  (I have  done some testing with the not-yet-upstream sfc_ef100 driver, though.) But as I'm not a netfilter user, I don't have a handy set of netfilter  rules to test this with anyway; and my previous attempts to find useful  documentation on netfilter.org were not fruitful (although I've just  now found wiki.nftables.org).  I was hoping someone with the domain  knowledge (and the hardware) could test this. (Also, for complicated reasons, getting nft built for my ef100 test  system would be decidedly nontrivial; and any test I do without offload  hardware at the bottom would necessarily be so synthetic I'm not sure  I'd trust it to prove anything.) > Netfilter is a client of this flow offload API, you have to test that > your core updates do not break any of existing clients. Okay, but can we distinguish between "this needs to be tested with  netfilter before it can be merged" and "this is breaking netfilter"? Or do you have a specific reason why you think this is broken, beyond  merely 'it isn't tested'?