netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf-next v4 07/17] libbpf: Support drivers with non-combined channels

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: <20190613103426.76d3789e@cakuba.netronome.com>
Date:   Thu, 13 Jun 2019 10:34:26 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>
To:     Björn Töpel <bjorn.topel@...il.com>
Cc:     Maxim Mikityanskiy <maximmi@...lanox.com>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Björn Töpel 
        <bjorn.topel@...el.com>,
        Magnus Karlsson <magnus.karlsson@...el.com>,
        "bpf@...r.kernel.org" <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...lanox.com>,
        Jonathan Lemon <bsd@...com>,
        Tariq Toukan <tariqt@...lanox.com>,
        Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>,
        Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
        Maciej Fijalkowski <maciejromanfijalkowski@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v4 07/17] libbpf: Support drivers with
 non-combined channels

On Thu, 13 Jun 2019 14:41:30 +0200, Björn Töpel wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Jun 2019 at 22:24, Jakub Kicinski
> <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 12 Jun 2019 15:56:48 +0000, Maxim Mikityanskiy wrote:  
> > > Currently, libbpf uses the number of combined channels as the maximum
> > > queue number. However, the kernel has a different limitation:
> > >
> > > - xdp_reg_umem_at_qid() allows up to max(RX queues, TX queues).
> > >
> > > - ethtool_set_channels() checks for UMEMs in queues up to
> > >   combined_count + max(rx_count, tx_count).
> > >
> > > libbpf shouldn't limit applications to a lower max queue number. Account
> > > for non-combined RX and TX channels when calculating the max queue
> > > number. Use the same formula that is used in ethtool.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Maxim Mikityanskiy <maximmi@...lanox.com>
> > > Reviewed-by: Tariq Toukan <tariqt@...lanox.com>
> > > Acked-by: Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...lanox.com>  
> >
> > I don't think this is correct.  max_tx tells you how many TX channels
> > there can be, you can't add that to combined.  Correct calculations is:
> >
> > max_num_chans = max(max_combined, max(max_rx, max_tx))
> >  
> 
> ...but the inner max should be min, right?
> 
> Assuming we'd like to receive and send.

That was my knee jerk reaction too, but I think this is only use to
size the array (I could be wrong).  In which case we need an index for
unidirectional socks, too.  Perhaps the helper could be named better if
my understanding is correct :(