On Wed 17 Apr 2019 at 00:49, Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicin...@netronome.com>
wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Apr 2019 17:20:47 +0300, Vlad Buslov wrote:
>> @@ -1551,6 +1558,10 @@ static int fl_change(struct net *net, struct sk_buff
>> *in_skb,
>> goto errout_mask;
>>
>> if (!tc_skip_hw(fnew->flags)) {
>> + spin_lock(&tp->lock);
>> + list_add(&fnew->hw_list, &head->hw_filters);
>> + spin_unlock(&tp->lock);
>> +
>> err = fl_hw_replace_filter(tp, fnew, rtnl_held, extack);
>> if (err)
>> goto errout_ht;
>
> Duplicated deletes should be fine, but I'm not sure same is true for
> adds. Won't seeing an add with the same cookie twice confuse drivers?
>
> There's also the minor issue of offloaded count being off in that
> case :)
Hmmm, okay. Rejecting duplicate cookies should be a trivial change to
drivers though. Do you see any faults with this approach in general?
