Eelco Chaudron <echau...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 22 Jul 2020, at 21:22, Florian Westphal wrote:
> > I see a 0 cache size is legal (turns it off) and that the allocation
> > path has a few sanity checks as well.
> >
> > Would it make sense to add min/max policy to datapath_policy[] for this
> > as well?
>
> Yes I could add the following:
>
> @@ -1906,7 +1906,8 @@ static const struct nla_policy
> datapath_policy[OVS_DP_ATTR_MAX + 1] = {
> [OVS_DP_ATTR_NAME] = { .type = NLA_NUL_STRING, .len = IFNAMSIZ - 1
> },
> [OVS_DP_ATTR_UPCALL_PID] = { .type = NLA_U32 },
> [OVS_DP_ATTR_USER_FEATURES] = { .type = NLA_U32 },
> + [OVS_DP_ATTR_MASKS_CACHE_SIZE] = NLA_POLICY_RANGE(NLA_U32, 0,
> + PCPU_MIN_UNIT_SIZE / sizeof(struct mask_cache_entry)),
> };
> Let me know your thoughts
I think its a good idea. When 'max' becomes too restricted one could
rework internal kernel logic to support larger size and userspace
can detect it by probing with a larger size first.
