linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 00/30] Kernel NET policy

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, 18 Jul 2016 18:17:28 +0200
From:	Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>
To:	"Liang, Kan" <kan.liang@...el.com>
Cc:	Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>,
	"davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org" <intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Kirsher, Jeffrey T" <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>,
	"mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
	"peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>,
	"kuznet@....inr.ac.ru" <kuznet@....inr.ac.ru>,
	"jmorris@...ei.org" <jmorris@...ei.org>,
	"yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org" <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>,
	"kaber@...sh.net" <kaber@...sh.net>,
	"akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"keescook@...omium.org" <keescook@...omium.org>,
	"viro@...iv.linux.org.uk" <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	"gorcunov@...nvz.org" <gorcunov@...nvz.org>,
	"john.stultz@...aro.org" <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
	"aduyck@...antis.com" <aduyck@...antis.com>,
	"ben@...adent.org.uk" <ben@...adent.org.uk>,
	"decot@...glers.com" <decot@...glers.com>,
	"Brandeburg, Jesse" <jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>,
	"andi@...stfloor.org" <andi@...stfloor.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 00/30] Kernel NET policy

Liang, Kan <kan.liang@...el.com> wrote:
> > What is missing in the kernel UAPI so userspace could do these settings on its
> > own, without adding this policy stuff to the kernel?
> 
> The main purpose of the proposal is to simplify the configuration. Too many
> options will let them confuse. 
> For normal users, they just need to tell the kernel that they want high throughput
> for the application. The kernel will take care of the rest.
> So, I don't think we need an interface for user to set their own policy settings.

I don't (yet) agree that the kernel is the right place for this.
I agree that current (bare) kernel config interface(s) for this are
hard to use.

> > It seems strange to me to add such policies to the kernel.
> 
> But kernel is the only place which can merge all user's requests.

I don't think so.

If different requests conflict in a way that is possible to do something
meaningful the I don't see why userspace tool cannot do the same
thing...

> > Addmittingly, documentation of some settings is non-existent and one needs
> > various different tools to set this (sysctl, procfs, sysfs, ethtool, etc).
> > 
> > But all of these details could be hidden from user.
> > Have you looked at tuna for instance?
> 
> Not yet. Is there similar settings for network?

Last time I checked tuna could only set a few network-related sysctls
and handle irq settings/affinity, but not e.g. tune irq coalescening
or any other network interface specific settings.