netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 0/3] support changing steering policies in tuntap

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:   Wed, 27 Sep 2017 22:02:31 -0700
From:   Tom Herbert <tom@...bertland.com>
To:     Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>
Cc:     "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
        Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>,
        Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 0/3] support changing steering policies in tuntap

On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 4:25 PM, Willem de Bruijn
<willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com> wrote:
>>> In the future, both simple and sophisticated policy like RSS or other guest
>>> driven steering policies could be done on top.
>>
>> IMHO there should be a more practical example before adding all this
>> indirection. And it would be nice to understand why this queue selection
>> needs to be tun specific.
>
> I was thinking the same and this reminds me of the various strategies
> implemented in packet fanout. tun_cpu_select_queue is analogous to
> fanout_demux_cpu though it is tun-specific in that it requires tun->numqueues.
>
> Fanout accrued various strategies until it gained an eBPF variant. Just
> supporting BPF is probably sufficient here, too.

+1, in addition to packet fanout, we have SO_REUSEPORT with BPF, RPS,
RFS, etc. It would be nice if existing packet steering mechanisms
could be leveraged for tun.