netdev - Re: [next-queue RFC 0/4] ethtool: Add support for frame preemption

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: <20200517184514.GD606317@lunn.ch>
Date:   Sun, 17 May 2020 20:45:14 +0200
From:   Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To:     Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>
Cc:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Vinicius Costa Gomes <vinicius.gomes@...el.com>,
        intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org,
        Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>,
        netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com>,
        Po Liu <po.liu@....com>,
        Murali Karicheri <m-karicheri2@...com>,
        Jose Abreu <Jose.Abreu@...opsys.com>
Subject: Re: [next-queue RFC 0/4] ethtool: Add support for frame preemption

On Sun, May 17, 2020 at 01:51:19PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> On Sun, 17 May 2020 at 01:19, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote:
> >
> > From: Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>
> > Date: Sun, 17 May 2020 00:03:39 +0300
> >
> > > As to why this doesn't go to tc but to ethtool: why would it go to tc?
> >
> > Maybe you can't %100 duplicate the on-the-wire special format and
> > whatever, but the queueing behavior ABSOLUTELY you can emulate in
> > software.
> >
> > And then you have the proper hooks added for HW offload which can
> > do the on-the-wire stuff.
> >
> > That's how we do these things, not with bolted on ethtool stuff.
> 
> When talking about frame preemption in the way that it is defined in
> 802.1Qbu and 802.3br, it says or assumes nothing about queuing. It
> describes the fact that there are 2 MACs per interface, 1 MAC dealing
> with some traffic classes and the other dealing with the rest.

I did not follow the previous discussion, but i assume you talked
about modelling it in Linux as two MACs? Why was that approach not
followed?

   Andrew