netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH v3 12/12] selftests: add ncdevmem, netcat for devmem TCP

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: Sun, 12 Nov 2023 20:08:10 -0800
From: Mina Almasry <almasrymina@...gle.com>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-media@...r.kernel.org, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, 
	linaro-mm-sig@...ts.linaro.org, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, 
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, 
	Jesper Dangaard Brouer <hawk@...nel.org>, Ilias Apalodimas <ilias.apalodimas@...aro.org>, 
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>, 
	Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, 
	Sumit Semwal <sumit.semwal@...aro.org>, Christian König <christian.koenig@....com>, 
	Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>, Jeroen de Borst <jeroendb@...gle.com>, 
	Praveen Kaligineedi <pkaligineedi@...gle.com>, Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 12/12] selftests: add ncdevmem, netcat for devmem TCP

j

On Fri, Nov 10, 2023 at 6:36 PM Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 10 Nov 2023 18:27:08 -0800 Mina Almasry wrote:
> > Thanks for the clear requirement. I clearly had something different in mind.
> >
> > Might be dumb suggestions, but instead of creating a new ndo that we
> > maybe end up wanting to deprecate once the queue API is ready, how
> > about we use either of those existing APIs?
> >
> > +void netdev_reset(struct net_device *dev)
> > +{
> > +       int flags = ETH_RESET_ALL;
> > +       int err;
> > +
> > +#if 1
> > +       __dev_close(dev);
> > +       err = __dev_open(dev, NULL);
> > +#else
> > +       err = dev->ethtool_ops->reset(dev, &flags);
> > +#endif
> > +}
> > +
> >
> > I've tested both of these to work with GVE on both bind via the
> > netlink API and unbind via the netlink socket close, but I'm not
> > enough of an expert to tell if there is some bad side effect that can
> > happen or something.
>
> We generally don't accept drivers doing device reconfiguration with
> full close() + open() because if the open() fails your machine
> may be cut off.
>
> There are drivers which do it, but they are either old... or weren't
> reviewed hard enough.
>
> The driver should allocate memory and whether else it can without
> stopping the queues first. Once it has all those, stop the queues,
> reconfigure with already allocated resources, start queues, free old.
>
> Even without the queue API in place, good drivers do full device
> reconfig this way. Hence my mind goes towards a new (temporary?)
> ndo. It will be replaced by the queue API, but whoever implements
> it for now has to follow this careful reconfig strategy...

OK, thanks. I managed to get a POC (but only POC) of the queue API
working with GVE. I still need to test it more thoroughly and get a
review before I can conclude it's actually a viable path but it
doesn't seem as grim as I originally thought:

https://github.com/torvalds/linux/commit/21b8e108fa88d90870eef53be9320f136b96cca0

So, seems there are 2 paths forward:

(a) implement a new 'reconfig' ndo carefully as you described above.
(b) implement a minimal version of the queue API as you described
here: https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20230815171638.4c057dcd@kernel.org/

Some questions, sorry if basic:

1. For (b), would it be OK to implement a very minimal version of
queue_[stop|start]/queue_mem_[alloc|free], which I use for the sole
purpose of reposting buffers to an individual queue, and then later
whoever picks up your queue API effort (maybe me) extends the
implementation to do the rest of the things you described in your
email? If not, what is the minimal queue API I can implement and use
for devmem TCP?

2. Since this is adding ndo, do I need to implement the ndo for 2
drivers or is GVE sufficient?

--
Thanks,
Mina