linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 00/17] net: introduce Qualcomm IPA driver

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:   Tue, 18 Jun 2019 15:15:42 -0600
From:   Subash Abhinov Kasiviswanathan <subashab@...eaurora.org>
To:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc:     Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>,
        Alex Elder <elder@...aro.org>, abhishek.esse@...il.com,
        Ben Chan <benchan@...gle.com>,
        Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
        cpratapa@...eaurora.org, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Dan Williams <dcbw@...hat.com>,
        DTML <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        Eric Caruso <ejcaruso@...gle.com>, evgreen@...omium.org,
        Ilias Apalodimas <ilias.apalodimas@...aro.org>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-soc@...r.kernel.org, Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        syadagir@...eaurora.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/17] net: introduce Qualcomm IPA driver

On 2019-06-18 14:55, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 10:36 PM Johannes Berg
> <johannes@...solutions.net> wrote:
>> 
>> On Tue, 2019-06-18 at 21:59 +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> >
>> > From my understanding, the ioctl interface would create the lower
>> > netdev after talking to the firmware, and then user space would use
>> > the rmnet interface to create a matching upper-level device for that.
>> > This is an artifact of the strong separation of ipa and rmnet in the
>> > code.
>> 
>> Huh. But if rmnet has muxing, and IPA supports that, why would you 
>> ever
>> need multiple lower netdevs?
> 
> From my reading of the code, there is always exactly a 1:1 relationship
> between an rmnet netdev an an ipa netdev. rmnet does the encapsulation/
> decapsulation of the qmap data and forwards it to the ipa netdev,
> which then just passes data through between a hardware queue and
> its netdevice.
> 

There is a n:1 relationship between rmnet and IPA.
rmnet does the de-muxing to multiple netdevs based on the mux id
in the MAP header for RX packets and vice versa.

> [side note: on top of that, rmnet also does "aggregation", which may
>  be a confusing term that only means transferring multiple frames
>  at once]
> 
>> > ipa definitely has multiple hardware queues, and the Alex'
>> > driver does implement  the data path on those, just not the
>> > configuration to enable them.
>> 
>> OK, but perhaps you don't actually have enough to use one for each
>> session?
> 
> I'm lacking the terminology here, but what I understood was that
> the netdev and queue again map to a session.
> 
>> > Guessing once more, I suspect the the XON/XOFF flow control
>> > was a workaround for the fact that rmnet and ipa have separate
>> > queues. The hardware channel on IPA may fill up, but user space
>> > talks to rmnet and still add more frames to it because it doesn't
>> > know IPA is busy.
>> >
>> > Another possible explanation would be that this is actually
>> > forwarding state from the base station to tell the driver to
>> > stop sending data over the air.
>> 
>> Yeah, but if you actually have a hardware queue per upper netdev then
>> you don't really need this - you just stop the netdev queue when the
>> hardware queue is full, and you have flow control automatically.
>> 
>> So I really don't see any reason to have these messages going back and
>> forth unless you plan to have multiple sessions muxed on a single
>> hardware queue.
> 

Hardware may flow control specific PDNs (rmnet interfaces) based on QoS 
-
not necessarily only in case of hardware queue full.

> Sure, I definitely understand what you mean, and I agree that would
> be the right way to do it. All I said is that this is not how it was 
> done
> in rmnet (this was again my main concern about the rmnet design
> after I learned it was required for ipa) ;-)
> 
>      Arnd

-- 
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project