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: <20190806115449.5b3a9d97@cakuba.netronome.com>
Date:   Tue, 6 Aug 2019 11:54:49 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>
To:     Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
Cc:     dsahern@...il.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net,
        mlxsw@...lanox.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 Tue, 6 Aug 2019 20:38:41 +0200, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> >> 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?  
> >
> >I'm no expert here but seems counter intuitive that device tables would
> >be aware of namespaces in the first place. Are we not reinventing
> >cgroup controllers based on a device API? IMHO from a perspective of
> >someone unfamiliar with routing offload this seems backwards :)  
> 
> Can we use cgroup for fib and other limitations instead?

Not sure the question is to me, I don't feel particularly qualified,
I've never worked with VDCs or wrote a switch driver.. But I'd see
cgroups as a natural fit, and if I read Andrew's reply right so does
he.. There's certainly a feeling of reinventing the wheel here.

We usually model things in software and then compile that abstraction
into device terms. Devlink allows for low level access to the device,
it allows us to, in a sense, see the result of that compilation. But
that's more of a debugging/low level knob than first class citizen :(