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]

Message-ID: <37D7C6CF3E00A74B8858931C1DB2F07712C19852@SHSMSX103.ccr.corp.intel.com>
Date:	Mon, 18 Jul 2016 20:14:15 +0000
From:	"Liang, Kan" <kan.liang@...el.com>
To:	Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
CC:	Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	intel-wired-lan <intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org>,
	Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Kirsher, Jeffrey T" <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	"Alexey Kuznetsov" <kuznet@....inr.ac.ru>,
	James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
	"Hideaki YOSHIFUJI" <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>,
	Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
	Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...nvz.org>,
	John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
	Alex Duyck <aduyck@...antis.com>,
	"ben@...adent.org.uk" <ben@...adent.org.uk>,
	"decot@...glers.com" <decot@...glers.com>,
	"Brandeburg, Jesse" <jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>
Subject: RE: [RFC PATCH 00/30] Kernel NET policy



> 
> On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 8:45 AM, Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org> wrote:
> >> It seems strange to me to add such policies to the kernel.
> >> Addmittingly, documentation of some settings is non-existent and one
> >> needs various different tools to set this (sysctl, procfs, sysfs, ethtool, etc).
> >
> > The problem is that different applications need different policies.
> >
> > The only entity which can efficiently negotiate between different
> > applications' conflicting requests is the kernel. And that is pretty
> > much the basic job description of a kernel: multiplex hardware
> > efficiently between different users.
> >
> > So yes the user space tuning approach works for simple cases ("only
> > run workloads that require the same tuning"), but is ultimately not
> > very interesting nor scalable.
> 
> I don't read the code yet, just the cover letter.
> 
> We have global tunings, per-network-namespace tunings, per-socket tunings.
> It is still unclear why you can't just put different applications into different
> namespaces/containers to get different policies.

In NET policy, we do per queue tunings.


Thanks,
Kan