netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH net-next 0/5] tcp: TCP tracer

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, 15 Dec 2014 14:01:43 -0800
From:	Tom Herbert <therbert@...gle.com>
To:	Josef Bacik <jbacik@...com>
Cc:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
	Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>,
	Laurent Chavey <chavey@...gle.com>,
	Yuchung Cheng <ycheng@...gle.com>,
	Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Lawrence Brakmo <brakmo@...com>,
	Kernel Team <Kernel-team@...com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH net-next 0/5] tcp: TCP tracer

On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 8:42 AM, Josef Bacik <jbacik@...com> wrote:
> On 12/15/2014 11:03 AM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 2014-12-14 at 22:55 -0800, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
>>
>>> I think patches 1 and 3 are good additions, since they establish
>>> few permanent points of instrumentation in tcp stack.
>>> Patches 4-5 look more like use cases of tracepoints established
>>> before. They may feel like simple additions and, no doubt,
>>> they are useful, but since they expose things via tracing
>>> infra they become part of api and cannot be changed later,
>>> when more stats would be needed.
>>> I think systemtap like scripting on top of patches 1 and 3
>>> should solve your use case ?
>>> Also, have you looked at recent eBPF work?
>>> Though it's not completely ready yet, soon it should
>>> be able to do the same stats collection as you have
>>> in 4/5 without adding permanent pieces to the kernel.
>>
>>
>> So it looks like web10g like interfaces are very often requested by
>> various teams.
>>
>> And we have many different views on how to hack this. I am astonished by
>> number of hacks I saw about this stuff going on.
>>
>> What about a clean way, extending current TCP_INFO, which is both
>> available as a getsockopt() for socket owners and ss/iproute2
>> information for 'external entities'
>>
>> If we consider web10g info needed, then adding a ftrace/eBPF like
>> interface is simply yet another piece of code we need to maintain,
>> and the argument of 'this should cost nothing if not activated' is
>> nonsense since major players need to constantly monitor TCP metrics and
>> behavior.
>>
>> It seems both FaceBook and Google are working on a subset of web10g.
>>
>> I suggest we meet together and establish a common ground, preferably
>> after Christmas holidays.
>>
>
> We've set up something for exactly this case at the end of January but have
> yet to get a response from Google.  If any of the Google people cc'ed (or
> really anybody, its not a strictly FB/Google thing) is interested please
> email me directly and I'll send you the details, we will be meeting face to
> face in the bay area at the end of January.  Thanks,
>

Maybe this would be good for discussion at netdev01?

> Josef
>
>
> --
> 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
--
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