netdev - Re: [patch net-next v4 00/10] net: sched: allow qdiscs to share filter block instances

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: <20180102194944.GG2051@nanopsycho.orion>
Date:   Tue, 2 Jan 2018 20:49:44 +0100
From:   Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
To:     David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net, jhs@...atatu.com,
        xiyou.wangcong@...il.com, mlxsw@...lanox.com, andrew@...n.ch,
        vivien.didelot@...oirfairelinux.com, f.fainelli@...il.com,
        michael.chan@...adcom.com, ganeshgr@...lsio.com,
        saeedm@...lanox.com, matanb@...lanox.com, leonro@...lanox.com,
        idosch@...lanox.com, jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com,
        simon.horman@...ronome.com, pieter.jansenvanvuuren@...ronome.com,
        john.hurley@...ronome.com, alexander.h.duyck@...el.com,
        ogerlitz@...lanox.com, john.fastabend@...il.com,
        daniel@...earbox.net
Subject: Re: [patch net-next v4 00/10] net: sched: allow qdiscs to share
 filter block instances

Mon, Dec 25, 2017 at 11:23:46AM CET, jiri@...nulli.us wrote:
>Sun, Dec 24, 2017 at 05:25:41PM CET, dsahern@...il.com wrote:
>>On 12/24/17 1:19 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>>> Sun, Dec 24, 2017 at 02:54:47AM CET, dsahern@...il.com wrote:
>>>> On 12/23/17 9:54 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>>>>> So back to the example. First, we create 2 qdiscs. Both will share
>>>>> block number 22. "22" is just an identification. If we don't pass any
>>>>> block number, a new one will be generated by kernel:
>>>>>
>>>>> $ tc qdisc add dev ens7 ingress block 22
>>>>>                                 ^^^^^^^^
>>>>> $ tc qdisc add dev ens8 ingress block 22
>>>>>                                 ^^^^^^^^
>>>>>
>>>>> Now if we list the qdiscs, we will see the block index in the output:
>>>>>
>>>>> $ tc qdisc
>>>>> qdisc ingress ffff: dev ens7 parent ffff:fff1 block 22
>>>>> qdisc ingress ffff: dev ens8 parent ffff:fff1 block 22
>>>>>
>>>>> To make is more visual, the situation looks like this:
>>>>>
>>>>>    ens7 ingress qdisc                 ens7 ingress qdisc
>>>>>           |                                  |
>>>>>           |                                  |
>>>>>           +---------->  block 22  <----------+
>>>>>
>>>>> Unlimited number of qdiscs may share the same block.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now we can add filter to any of qdiscs sharing the same block:
>>>>>
>>>>> $ tc filter add dev ens7 ingress protocol ip pref 25 flower dst_ip 192.168.0.0/16 action drop
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Allowing config of a shared block through any qdisc that references it
>>>> is akin to me allowing nexthop objects to be manipulated by any route
>>>> that references it -- sure, it could be done but causes a lot surprises
>>>> to the user.
>>>>
>>>> You are adding a new tc object -- a shared block. Why the resistance to
>>>> creating a proper API for managing it?
>>> 
>>> Again, no resistance, I said many times it would be done as a follow-up.
>>> But as an api already exists, it has to continue to work. Or do you
>>> suggest it should stop working? That, I don't agree with.
>>> 
>>
>>That is exactly what I am saying - principle of least surprise. The new
>>object brings its own API and can only be modified using the new API.
>>The scheme above can and will surprise users. You are thinking like a tc
>>developer, someone intimately familiar with the code, and not like an
>>ordinary user of this new feature.
>
>Breaking exising tools is newer good. Note that not only about filter
>add/del iface but also dump and notifications. I agree to extend the api
>for the "block handle", sure, but the existing api should continue to
>work.

DaveA, please consider following example:

$ tc qdisc add dev ens7 ingress
$ tc qdisc
qdisc ingress ffff: dev ens7 parent ffff:fff1 block 1

Now I have one device with one qdisc attached.

I will add some filters, for example:
$ tc filter add dev ens7 ingress protocol ip pref 25 flower dst_ip 192.168.0.0/16 action drop

No sharing is happening. The user is doing what he is used to do.

Now user decides to share this filters with another device. As you can
see above, the block created for ens7 qdisc instance has id "1".
User can simply do:

tc qdisc add dev ens8 ingress block 1

And the block gets shared among ens7 ingress qdisc instance and ens8
ingress qdisc instance.

What is wrong with this? The approach you suggest would disallow this
forcing user to explicitly create some block entity and then to attach
it to qdisc instances. I don't really see good reason for it. Could you
please clear this up for me?

Thanks!