netdev - Re: [RFC] implicit per-namespace devlink instance to set kernel resource limitations

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: <c615dce5-9307-7640-2877-4e5c01e565c0@gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 6 Aug 2019 11:38:32 -0600
From:   David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>
To:     Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     davem@...emloft.net, mlxsw@...lanox.com,
        jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com, andrew@...n.ch, f.fainelli@...il.com,
        vivien.didelot@...il.com, mkubecek@...e.cz,
        stephen@...workplumber.org, daniel@...earbox.net,
        brouer@...hat.com, eric.dumazet@...il.com
Subject: Re: [RFC] implicit per-namespace devlink instance to set kernel
 resource limitations

On 8/6/19 10:40 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> Hi all.
> 
> I just discussed this with DavidA and I would like to bring this to
> broader audience. David wants to limit kernel resources in network
> namespaces, for example fibs, fib rules, etc.
> 
> He claims that devlink api is rich enough to program this limitations
> as it already does for mlxsw hw resources for example. If we have this
> api for hardware, why don't to reuse it for the kernel and it's
> resources too?

The analogy is that a kernel is 'programmed' just like hardware, it has
resources just like hardware (e.g., memory) and those resources are
limited as well. So the resources consumed by fib entries, rules,
nexthops, etc should be controllable.

> 
> So the proposal is to have some new device, say "kernelnet", that would
> implicitly create per-namespace devlink instance. This devlink
> instance would be used to setup resource limits. Like:
> 
> devlink resource set kernelnet path /IPv4/fib size 96
> devlink -N ns1name resource set kernelnet path /IPv6/fib size 100
> devlink -N ns2name resource set kernelnet path /IPv4/fib-rules size 8
> 
> To me it sounds a bit odd for kernel namespace to act as a device, but
> thinking about it more, it makes sense. Probably better than to define
> a new api. User would use the same tool to work with kernel and hw.
> 
> Also we can implement other devlink functionality, like dpipe.
> User would then have visibility of network pipeline, tables,
> utilization, etc. It is related to the resources too.
> 
> What do you think?
> 
> Jiri
>