netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH net-next] net/core: initial support for stacked dev feature toggles

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: <56339C6B.3000108@redhat.com>
Date:	Fri, 30 Oct 2015 12:35:55 -0400
From:	Jarod Wilson <jarod@...hat.com>
To:	Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@...il.com>
CC:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
	Jay Vosburgh <j.vosburgh@...il.com>,
	Veaceslav Falico <vfalico@...il.com>,
	Andy Gospodarek <gospo@...ulusnetworks.com>,
	Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>,
	Nikolay Aleksandrov <razor@...ckwall.org>,
	Michal Kubecek <mkubecek@...e.cz>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH net-next] net/core: initial support for stacked dev
 feature toggles

Alexander Duyck wrote:
> On 10/23/2015 08:40 PM, Jarod Wilson wrote:
>> There are some netdev features that make little sense to toggle on and
>> off in a stacked device setup on only one device in the stack. The prime
>> example is a bonded connection, where it really doesn't make sense to
>> disable LRO on the master, but not on any of the slaves, nor does it
>> really make sense to be able to shut LRO off on a slave when its still
>> enabled on the master.
>>
>> The strategy here is to add a section near the end of
>> netdev_fix_features() that looks for upper and lower netdevs, then make
>> sure certain feature flags match both up and down the stack. At present,
>> only the LRO flag is included.
...
>> +static void netdev_sync_lower_features(struct net_device *upper,
>> + struct net_device *lower, netdev_features_t features)
>> +{
>> + netdev_features_t want = features & lower->hw_features;
>> +
>> + if (!(features & NETIF_F_LRO) && (lower->features & NETIF_F_LRO)) {
>> + netdev_info(upper, "Disabling LRO on lower dev %s.\n",
>> + lower->name);
>> + upper->wanted_features &= ~NETIF_F_LRO;
>> + lower->wanted_features &= ~NETIF_F_LRO;
>> + netdev_update_features(lower);
>> + if (unlikely(lower->features & NETIF_F_LRO))
>> + netdev_WARN(upper, "failed to disable LRO on %s!\n",
>> + lower->name);
>> + } else if ((want & NETIF_F_LRO) && !(lower->features & NETIF_F_LRO)) {
>> + netdev_info(upper, "Enabling LRO on lower dev %s.\n",
>> + lower->name);
>> + upper->wanted_features |= NETIF_F_LRO;
>> + lower->wanted_features |= NETIF_F_LRO;
>> + netdev_update_features(lower);
>> + if (unlikely(!(lower->features & NETIF_F_LRO)))
>> + netdev_WARN(upper, "failed to enable LRO on %s!\n",
>> + lower->name);
>> + }
>> +}
>> +
>
> Same thing here. If a lower dev has it disabled then leave it disabled.
> I believe your goal is to make it so that dev_disable_lro() can shut
> down LRO when it is making packets in the data-path unusable. There is
> no need to make this an all or nothing scenario. We can let the stack
> slam things down with dev_disable_lro() and then if a user so desires
> they can come back through and enable LRO more selectively if they for
> instance have an interface that can do a smarter job of putting together
> frames that could be routed.
>
> You could probably look at doing something like this for RXCSUM as well.
> The general idea is that if an upper device has it off then the value
> has to be off. For example if RXCSUM is off in a upper device and LRO is
> enabled on the lower device there is a good chance that the upper device
> will report checksum errors since most LRO implementations don't
> recalculate the checksum. If RXCSUM is forced down to the lower device
> hopefully its fix_features will know this and disable LRO on that device
> when the RXCSUM is disabled on it.

Yeah, I was thinking there might be more flags to treat the same way, 
just wanted to hammer out the plausibility of doing it at all first. I 
can add RXCSUM to v2, or just wait until there's something that people 
might consider merge-worthy before worrying about additional flags. From 
what I've seen, most device's fix_features are reasonably intelligent 
about allowing/disallowing certain flag combos, so this does look pretty 
safe at a glance, and if a specific device tips over, it probably needs 
to be fixed in the device's driver anyway.

-- 
Jarod Wilson
jarod@...hat.com


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html