netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 1/8] net/flower: Introduce hardware 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: <56D71358.6040205@gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 02 Mar 2016 08:22:48 -0800
From:	John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>
To:	Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>, Or Gerlitz <gerlitz.or@...il.com>
CC:	John Fastabend <john.r.fastabend@...el.com>,
	Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>,
	Amir Vadai <amir@...ai.me>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Linux Netdev List <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Or Gerlitz <ogerlitz@...lanox.com>,
	Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...lanox.com>,
	Hadar Har-Zion <hadarh@...lanox.com>,
	Jiri Pirko <jiri@...lanox.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/8] net/flower: Introduce hardware offload support

On 16-03-02 05:22 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> Wed, Mar 02, 2016 at 12:14:39PM CET, gerlitz.or@...il.com wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 7:01 PM, Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us> wrote:
>>> Tue, Mar 01, 2016 at 05:49:27PM CET, amir@...ai.me wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Mar 01, 2016 at 03:47:19PM +0100, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>>>>> Tue, Mar 01, 2016 at 03:24:43PM CET, amir@...ai.me wrote:
>>>>>> This patch is based on a patch made by John Fastabend.
>>
>>>>>> It adds support for offloading cls_flower.
>>>>>> A filter that is offloaded successfully by hardware, will not be added to
>>>>>> the hashtable and won't be processed by software.
>>
>>>>> That is wrong. User should explicitly specify to not include rule into sw
>>>>> by SKIP_KERNEL flag (does not exist now, with John's recent patch we'll
>>>>> have only SKIP_HW). Please add that in this patchset.
>>
>>>> Why? If a rule is offloaded, why would the user want to reprocess it by software?
>>
>>>> If the user use SKIP_HW, it will be processed by SW. Else, the user
>>>> would want it to be processed by HW or fallback to SW. I don't
>>>> understand in which case the user would like to have it done twice.
>>
>>> For example if you turn on the offloading by unsetting NETIF_F_HW_TC.
>>> Or if someone inserts skbs into rx path directly, for example pktgen.
>>> We need SKIP_KERNEL to be set by user, not implicit.
>>
>> As discussed in netdev, we want to have three modes for TC offloads
>>
>> 1. SW only
>> 2. HW only (and err if can't)
>> 3. HW and if not supported fallback to SW
>>
>> Now, from your reply, I understand we want a fourth mode
>>
>> 4. Both (HW and SW)
> 
> I would perhaps do it a litte bit differently:
> NO FLAG (default)- insert into kernel and HW now:
> 		if NETIF_F_HW_TC is off (default)
> 			-> push to kernel only (current behaviour)
> 		if NETIF_F_HW_TC is on AND push to HW fails
> 			-> return error
> SKIP_HW - flag to tell kernel not to insert into HW
> SKIP_SW - flag to tell kernel not to insert into kernel
> 
> to achieve hw only, user has to turn on the NETIF_F_HW_TC and
> pass SKIP_SW flag.
> 

The modes Jiri describes here is exactly how I planned to build
this. And at the moment the only one we are missing is SKIP_HW
which I'm reworking now and should have in a few days.

To resolve the error handling if the rule is SKIP_HW or NO_FLAG
an error will be thrown if it can not be applied to software.
Notice if an error happens on the software insert with NO_FLAG then
the hardware insert is not attempted either. With SKIP_SW I will
throw an error if the hardware insert fails because there is
no software fallback in this mode.

The only mode I haven't looked at doing is

	3. HW and if not supported fallback to SW

I'm not sure I have a use case for it at the moment. It is sufficient
for me to just do a SKIP_SW command followed by a SKIP_HW command
if needed. I guess someone else could implement it if they really need
it.

> 
>>
>> Do we agree that these four policies/modes make sense?
>>
>> So you want #4 to be the default? can you elaborate why? note that for
>> the HW marking
>> case a "both" mode will be very inefficient, also for actions like
>> vlan push/pop, encap/decap, etc
> 
> Well when you push/pop vlan of encap/decap tunnel header in hw, you won't
> match the packet in kernel again. Most likely. But anyway, if you turn
> on NETIF_F_HW_TC you know what you are doing and you adjust the
> included rules (flags) accordingly.
> 
> 
>> the result will be just wrong... I don't think this should be the default.
>>
>> Or.