netdev - Re: [PATCH net v2] switchdev: don't abort hardware ipv4 fib offload on failure to program fib entry in hardware

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:	Fri, 29 May 2015 09:50:59 +0200
From:	Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
To:	Scott Feldman <sfeldma@...il.com>
Cc:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Roopa Prabhu <roopa@...ulusnetworks.com>,
	john fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
	Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andy Gospodarek <andy@...yhouse.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net v2] switchdev: don't abort hardware ipv4 fib offload
 on failure to program fib entry in hardware

Thu, May 28, 2015 at 05:40:11PM CEST, sfeldma@...il.com wrote:
>On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 2:42 AM, Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us> wrote:
>> Mon, May 18, 2015 at 10:19:16PM CEST, davem@...emloft.net wrote:
>>>From: Roopa Prabhu <roopa@...ulusnetworks.com>
>>>Date: Sun, 17 May 2015 16:42:05 -0700
>>>
>>>> On most systems where you can offload routes to hardware,
>>>> doing routing in software is not an option (the cpu limitations
>>>> make routing impossible in software).
>>>
>>>You absolutely do not get to determine this policy, none of us
>>>do.
>>>
>>>What matters is that by default the damn switch device being there
>>>is %100 transparent to the user.
>>>
>>>And the way to achieve that default is to do software routes as
>>>a fallback.
>>>
>>>I am not going to entertain changes of this nature which fail
>>>route loading by default just because we've exceeded a device's
>>>HW capacity to offload.
>>>
>>>I thought I was _really_ clear about this at netdev 0.1
>>
>> I certainly agree that by default, transparency 1:1 sw:hw mapping is
>> what we need for fib. The current code is a good start!
>>
>> I see couple of issues regarding switchdev_fib_ipv4_abort:
>> 1) If user adds and entry, switchdev_fib_ipv4_add fails, abort is
>>    executed -> and, error returned. I would expect that route entry should
>>    be added in this case. The next attempt of adding the same entry will
>>    be successful.
>>    The current behaviour breaks the transparency you are reffering to.
>> 2) When switchdev_fib_ipv4_abort happens to be executed, the offload is
>>    disabled for good (until reboot). That is certainly not nice, alhough
>>    I understand that is the easiest solution for now.
>>
>> I believe that we all agree that the 1:1 transparency, although it is a
>> default, may not be optimal for real-life usage. HW resources are
>> limited and user does not know them. The danger of hitting _abort and
>> screwing-up the whole system is huge, unacceptable.
>>
>> So here, there are couple of more or less simple things that I suggest to
>> do in order to move a little bit forward:
>> 1) Introduce system-wide option to switch _abort to just plain fail.
>>    When HW does not have capacity, do not flush and fallback to sw, but
>>    rather just fail to add the entry. This would not break anything.
>>    Userspace has to be prepared that entry add could fail.
>> 2) Introduce a way to propagate resources to userspace. Driver knows about
>>    resources used/available/potentially_available. Switchdev infra could
>>    be extended in order to propagate the info to the user.
>> 3) Introduce couple of flags for entry add that would alter the default
>>    behaviour. Something like:
>>         NLM_F_SKIP_KERNEL
>>         NLM_F_SKIP_OFFLOAD
>>    Again, this does not break the current users. On the other hand, this
>>    gives new users a leverage to instruct kernel where the entry should
>>    be added to (or not added to).
>>
>> Any thoughts? Objections?
>
>I don't like these.  Breaks transparency and forces the user in a
>position of having to know hardware failures modes (unique to each


Can you please elaborate on this a bit more? I fail to see transparency
breaking in my proposal :/ Maybe it is by different understanding of the
term?

Also I do not understand the remark about user having to know hardware
failure modes. Could you please explain?


>hardware device).  I presented an option d) which avoids this issues;
>was it not understood?

I just commented on option d) it other email.

--
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