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: <37D7C6CF3E00A74B8858931C1DB2F07712C19879@SHSMSX103.ccr.corp.intel.com>
Date:	Mon, 18 Jul 2016 20:24:01 +0000
From:	"Liang, Kan" <kan.liang@...el.com>
To:	Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
CC:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, 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.
> 
> Is it possible to isolate NIC queues for containers?

Yes, but we don't  have containers support yet.