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]
Date:   Sat, 23 Feb 2019 21:58:57 -0500
From:   David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>
To:     Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>,
        Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc:     brakmo <brakmo@...com>, netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Martin Lau <kafai@...com>, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...com>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Kernel Team <Kernel-team@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 bpf-next 0/9] bpf: Network Resource Manager (NRM)

On 2/23/19 6:25 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
>>> hmm. please see our NRM presentation at LPC.

Reference?

We also gave a talk about a resource manager in November 2017:

https://netdevconf.org/2.2/papers/roulin-hardwareresourcesmgmt-talk.pdf

in this case the context is hardware resources for networking which
aligns with devlink and switchdev.

>>> It is a networking _resource_ management for cgroups.
>>> Bandwidth enforcement is a particular example.
>>> It's not a policer either.
>>>
>>
>> Well, this definitely looks a policer to me, sorry if we disagree, this is fine.
> 
> this particular example certainly does look like it. we both agree.
> It's overall direction of this work that is aiming to do
> network resource management. For example bpf prog may choose
> to react on SLA violations in one cgroup by throttling flows
> in the other cgroup. Aggregated per-cgroup bandwidth doesn't
> need to cross a threshold for bpf prog to take action.
> It could do 'work conserving' 'policer'.
> I think this set of patches represent a revolutionary approach and existing
> networking nomenclature doesn't have precise words to describe it :)
> 'NRM' describes our goals the best.

Are you doing something beyond bandwidth usage? e.g., are you limiting
neighbor entries, fdb entries or FIB entries by cgroup? what about
router interfaces or vlans? I cannot imagine why or how you would manage
that but my point is the meaning of 'network resources'.


> Other folks may choose to use it differently, of course.
> Note that NRM abbreviation doesn't leak anywhere in uapi.
> It's only used in examples. So not sure what we're arguing about.
> 

It was a simple request for a more specific name that better represents
the scope of the project. Everything presented so far has been about
bandwidth.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists