netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2 v2] net: alternate proposal for using macvlans with forwarding acceleration

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]

Date:	Mon, 7 Oct 2013 21:08:22 -0400
From:	Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>
To:	John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	John Fastabend <john.r.fastabend@...el.com>,
	Andy Gospodarek <andy@...yhouse.net>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2 v2] net: alternate proposal for using macvlans
 with forwarding acceleration

On Mon, Oct 07, 2013 at 03:09:11PM -0700, John Fastabend wrote:
> On 10/04/2013 01:10 PM, Neil Horman wrote:
> >Hey all-
> >      heres the next, updated version of the vsi/macvlan integration that we've
> >been discussing.
> >
> >Some change notes:
> >
> >* Changes to the fowarding ops structure - Removed the priv_size field, and
> >added a flags field.  Removal of the priv_size field was accomplished by just
> >having the add method return a void * and using ERR_PTR and PTR_ERR checks,
> >which also allows us to allocate memory for the acceleration path in the driver,
> >which I like.  I'm not super happy still with how I'm using the flags (currenly
> >only used to indicate support for feature sets), but at least we have the flags
> >now, and they can be exposed to user space via iproute2 or ethtool if need be
> 
> For the flag why not use the existing feature flag namespace? Adding
> NETIF_F_HW_L2FW_DOFFLOAD or something equivalent to netdev_features.h
> and also doing the string updates would get the userspace support for
> free.
> 
> The one downside of a global feature flag approach like this is if
> the user wants to create some offloaded macvlan devices and some SW
> only macvlans the control sequence is a bit clumsy. But unless we add
> a new flag to the macvlan netlink message I'm not sure how to avoid
> this. Further if you have multiple control applications
> creating/deleting these macvlans the flag mechanism starts to break
> down. One app sets the flag the other deletes, you get the idea.
> 
> It might be worth adding a netlink flag to change the state of
> the HW offload. I know this goes against the 'it just gets offloaded'
> line of thought, but if you make the default to offload then it should
> be OK.
> 
Good suggestions, I should have thought to use the global flags previously. I
got hung up on the notion that for some reason our feature set should be
separated like the ops.  I really don't need to do that.

> >
> >* Changes to the Transmit path - Specifically I'm using dev_queue_xmit to send
> >frames now, which I like as it makes the macvlan subject to the lowerdevs qdisc
> >configuration.
> 
> This creates perhaps another oddity where on TX the packets will be
> visible to the lowerdev. Think tcpdump and egress qdisc. But on ingress
> the packets will be delivered directly to macvlan device. Also I was
> thinking there might be good reasons to skip the lowerdev qdisc, for
> performance reasons or QOS setups.
> 
Hmm, is that avoidable by doing an extra check in dev_queue_xmit (i.e. checking
to see if accel_data or some other pointer is set)?  Or do you think its worth
separating the tx path to an accelerated or non accelerated case?

> So it might be best the way you had it in the previous revision even if
> it was not functionally equivalent to the SW path. If you skip the lower
> dev and submit directly to the hardware then you also don't need a
> sk_buff change. The driver can do a lookup via the skb->dev field and
> additional hints from the stack are not needed.
> 
Ok, fair enough, I'll put it back the way I had it previously.

> If there is a perceived problem with not having the HW and SW completely
> equivalent functionally we could always default the feature flag to off.
> Then enabling the feature would be a single 'ethtool' command. This
> seems like a nice compromise.
> 
Yeah, I can agree with that.

> I like where this is going though!
I'm glad you think so!  I'll have another version out later this week!
Best
Neil

> 
> Thanks,
> John
> 
> -- 
> John Fastabend         Intel Corporation
> 
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html