netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 00/14] mlxsw: Shared buffer improvements

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: <20190422141739.4812894b@cakuba.netronome.com>
Date:   Mon, 22 Apr 2019 14:17:39 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>
To:     Ido Schimmel <idosch@...lanox.com>
Cc:     "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jiri Pirko <jiri@...lanox.com>,
        Petr Machata <petrm@...lanox.com>,
        Alex Kushnarov <alexanderk@...lanox.com>,
        mlxsw <mlxsw@...lanox.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 00/14] mlxsw: Shared buffer improvements

On Mon, 22 Apr 2019 12:08:38 +0000, Ido Schimmel wrote:
> This patchset includes two improvements with regards to shared buffer
> configuration in mlxsw.
> 
> The first part of this patchset forbids the user from performing illegal
> shared buffer configuration that can result in unnecessary packet loss.
> In order to better communicate these configuration failures to the user,
> extack is propagated from devlink towards drivers. This is done in
> patches #1-#8.
> 
> The second part of the patchset deals with the shared buffer
> configuration of the CPU port. When a packet is trapped by the device,
> it is sent across the PCI bus to the attached host CPU. From the
> device's perspective, it is as if the packet is transmitted through the
> CPU port.
> 
> While testing traffic directed at the CPU it became apparent that for
> certain packet sizes and certain burst sizes, the current shared buffer
> configuration of the CPU port is inadequate and results in packet drops.
> The configuration is adjusted by patches #9-#14 that create two new pools
> - ingress & egress - which are dedicated for CPU traffic.

Acked-by: Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>

Out of curiosity - are you guys considering adding CPU flavour ports,
or is there a good reason not to have it exposed?