netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH 00/30] Kernel NET policy

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: <CAM_iQpVRfoC0e43Pbsw8Q3RsyDDnMZeGu=oS0iVvAfMNwz6DeA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 18 Jul 2016 10:52:17 -0700
From:	Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
To:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Cc:	Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>, kan.liang@...el.com,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	intel-wired-lan <intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org>,
	Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Alexey Kuznetsov <kuznet@....inr.ac.ru>,
	James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
	Hideaki YOSHIFUJI <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>,
	Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
	Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...nvz.org>,
	John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
	Alex Duyck <aduyck@...antis.com>, ben@...adent.org.uk,
	decot@...glers.com, Jesse Brandeburg <jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 00/30] Kernel NET policy

On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 8:45 AM, Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org> wrote:
>> It seems strange to me to add such policies to the kernel.
>> Addmittingly, documentation of some settings is non-existent and one needs
>> various different tools to set this (sysctl, procfs, sysfs, ethtool, etc).
>
> The problem is that different applications need different policies.
>
> The only entity which can efficiently negotiate between different
> applications' conflicting requests is the kernel. And that is pretty
> much the basic job description of a kernel: multiplex hardware
> efficiently between different users.
>
> So yes the user space tuning approach works for simple cases
> ("only run workloads that require the same tuning"), but is ultimately not
> very interesting nor scalable.

I don't read the code yet, just the cover letter.

We have global tunings, per-network-namespace tunings, per-socket
tunings. It is still unclear why you can't just put different applications
into different namespaces/containers to get different policies.