linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next v2] ethtool: ice: Support for RSS settings to GTP from ethtool

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: <20231017164915.23757eed@kernel.org>
Date:   Tue, 17 Oct 2023 16:49:15 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     takeru hayasaka <hayatake396@...il.com>
Cc:     Jesse Brandeburg <jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>,
        Tony Nguyen <anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>,
        Harald Welte <laforge@...monks.org>,
        Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...filter.org>,
        osmocom-net-gprs@...ts.osmocom.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2] ethtool: ice: Support for RSS settings to
 GTP from ethtool

On Tue, 17 Oct 2023 23:37:57 +0900 takeru hayasaka wrote:
> > Are there really deployments where the *very limited* GTP-C control  
> I also think that it should not be limited to GTP-C. However, as I
> wrote in the email earlier, all the flows written are different in
> packet structure, including GTP-C. In the semantics of ethtool, I
> thought it was correct to pass a fixed packet structure and the
> controllable parameters for it. At least, the Intel ice driver that I
> modified is already like that.

I may be wrong (this API predates my involvement in Linux by a decade)
but I think that the current ethtool API is not all that precise in
terms of exact packet headers.

For example the TCPv6 flow includes IPv6 and TCP headers, but the
packet may or may not have any number of encapsulation headers in place.
VLAN, VXLAN, GENEVE etc. If the NIC can parse them - it will extract
the inner-most IPv6 and TCP src/dst and hash on that.

In a way TCP or IP headers may also differ by e.g. including options.
But as long as the fields we care about (source / dst) are in place,
we treat all variants of the header the same.

The question really is how much we should extend this sort of thinking
to GTP and say - we treat all GTP flows with extractable TEID the same;
and how much the user can actually benefit from controlling particular
sub-category of GTP flows. Or knowing that NIC supports a particular
sub-category.

Let's forget about capabilities of Intel NICs for now - can you as a
user think of practical use cases where we'd want to turn on hashing
based on TEID for, e.g. gtpu6 and not gtpc6?