linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC v2 net-next 0/5] net: Qdisc backpressure infrastructure

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: <YyigH0IvLZ8iGIvf@pop-os.localdomain>
Date:   Mon, 19 Sep 2022 10:00:15 -0700
From:   Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc:     Peilin Ye <yepeilin.cs@...il.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Hideaki YOSHIFUJI <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>,
        David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>,
        Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>,
        Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>,
        Peilin Ye <peilin.ye@...edance.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Cong Wang <cong.wang@...edance.com>,
        Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>,
        Dave Taht <dave.taht@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v2 net-next 0/5] net: Qdisc backpressure
 infrastructure

On Mon, Aug 29, 2022 at 05:21:11PM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Aug 2022 09:53:17 -0700 Cong Wang wrote:
> > > Similarly to Eric's comments on v1 I'm not seeing the clear motivation
> > > here. Modern high speed UDP users will have a CC in user space, back
> > > off and set transmission time on the packets. Could you describe your
> > > _actual_ use case / application in more detail?  
> > 
> > Not everyone implements QUIC or CC, it is really hard to implement CC
> > from scratch. This backpressure mechnism is much simpler than CC (TCP or
> > QUIC), as clearly it does not deal with any remote congestions.
> > 
> > And, although this patchset only implements UDP backpressure, it can be
> > applied to any other protocol easily, it is protocol-independent.
> 
> No disagreement on any of your points. But I don't feel like 
> you answered my question about the details of the use case.

Do you need a use case for UDP w/o QUIC? Seriously??? There must be
tons of it...

Take a look at UDP tunnels, for instance, wireguard which is our use
case. ByteDance has wireguard-based VPN solution for bussiness. (I hate
to brand ourselves, but you are asking for it...)

Please do research on your side, as a netdev maintainer, you are
supposed to know this much better than me.

Thanks.