linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next v2] net: mvpp2: cls: Add Classification offload support

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: <20190424090123.5089586c@bootlin.com>
Date:   Wed, 24 Apr 2019 09:01:23 +0200
From:   Maxime Chevallier <maxime.chevallier@...tlin.com>
To:     Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...lanox.com>
Cc:     "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        "miquel.raynal@...tlin.com" <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux@...linux.org.uk" <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
        "thomas.petazzoni@...tlin.com" <thomas.petazzoni@...tlin.com>,
        "mw@...ihalf.com" <mw@...ihalf.com>,
        "gregory.clement@...tlin.com" <gregory.clement@...tlin.com>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "stefanc@...vell.com" <stefanc@...vell.com>,
        "nadavh@...vell.com" <nadavh@...vell.com>,
        "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "antoine.tenart@...tlin.com" <antoine.tenart@...tlin.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2] net: mvpp2: cls: Add Classification offload
 support

Hello Saeed,

Thanks for the review,

>> When inserting a rule in a given flow, the location given is relative
>> to
>> the flow :
>> 
>> ethtool -N eth0 flow-type udp4 dst-port 1234 action 2 loc 0
>> 
>> ethtool -N eth0 flow-type tcp4 dst-port 1234 action 3 loc 0
>> 
>> However when removing a rule, the global location is to be used. This
>> location can be retrieved by using ethtool -n <interface>.
>>   
>
>I am not sure what you mean by "the location given is relative to the
>flow", it seems like the rule will end up in a different location than
>the user intended, but looking at ethtool documentation it clearly says
>that the location the user provides is an absolute rule id/location,
>which will be used to delete this rule.
>
>from "man ethtool":
>loc N:
>Specify the location/ID to insert the rule. This will overwrite any
>rule present in that location and will not go through any of the rule
>ordering process.
>
>delete N
>Deletes the RX classification rule with the given ID.

I was unsure about this, so I'm glad you commented. One thing
that made me think what I did could be okay is that the documentation
for ETHTOOL_SRXCLSRLINS in ethtool.h says :

"For %ETHTOOL_SRXCLSRLINS, @fs specifies the rule to add or update.
 @fs.@...ation either specifies the location to use or is a special
 location value with %RX_CLS_LOC_SPECIAL flag set.  On return,
 @fs.@...ation is the actual rule location."

I interpreted the "On return [...]" part as if we could rewrite the
location if needed when inserting a rule (although it seems ethtool
doesn't do anything with this return value)

The point for doing so is that we have a clear separation in our
classification tables between different traffic classes, so we have a
range of entries for tcp4, one for udp4, one for tcp6, etc.

Having a "global" location numbering scheme would, I think, also be
confusing, since it would make the user use loc 0->7 for tcp4, loc
8->15 for udp4 and so on.

Maybe in this case I should stick with insertions thay rely on
RX_CLS_LOC_SPECIAL (such as "first", "last", "any") and have a scheme
where priorisation is based strictly on the rule insertion order ?

>So the above example should result in one flow rule in your hardware.
>but according the code below the calculated index in
>mvpp2_ethtool_cls_rule_ins might end up different than the requested
>location, which will confuse the user.

I'm also working on writing a proper documentation for this driver,
including the behaviour of the classifier implementation, hopefully
this would help.

Thanks again for the review,

Maxime