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  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]
Date:   Tue, 19 May 2020 16:37:16 -0700
From:   Vinicius Costa Gomes <vinicius.gomes@...el.com>
To:     Andre Guedes <andre.guedes@...el.com>,
        intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org
Cc:     jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        vladimir.oltean@....com, po.liu@....com, m-karicheri2@...com,
        Jose.Abreu@...opsys.com
Subject: Re: [next-queue RFC 0/4] ethtool: Add support for frame preemption

Andre Guedes <andre.guedes@...el.com> writes:

> Hi,
>
> Quoting Vinicius Costa Gomes (2020-05-15 18:29:44)
>> One example, for retrieving and setting the configuration:
>> 
>> $ ethtool $ sudo ./ethtool --show-frame-preemption enp3s0
>> Frame preemption settings for enp3s0:
>>         support: supported
>>         active: active
>
> IIUC the code in patch 2, 'active' is the actual configuration knob that
> enables or disables the FP functionality on the NIC.
>
> That sounded a bit confusing to me since the spec uses the term 'active' to
> indicate FP is currently enabled at both ends, and it is a read-only
> information (see 12.30.1.4 from IEEE 802.1Q-2018). Maybe if we called this
> 'enabled' it would be more clear.

Good point. Will rename this to "enabled".

>
>>         supported queues: 0xf
>>         supported queues: 0xe
>>         minimum fragment size: 68
>
> I'm assuming this is the configuration knob for the minimal non-final fragment
> defined in 802.3br.
>
> My understanding from the specs is that this value must be a multiple from 64
> and cannot assume arbitrary values like shown here. See 99.4.7.3 from IEEE
> 802.3 and Note 1 in S.2 from IEEE 802.1Q. In the previous discussion about FP,
> we had this as a multiplier factor, not absolute value.

I thought that exposing this as "(1 + N)*64" (with 0 <= N <= 3) that it
was more related to what's exposed via LLDP than the actual capabilities
of the hardware. And for the hardware I have actually the values
supported are: (1 + N)*64 + 4 (for N = 0, 1, 2, 3).

So I thought I was better to let the driver decide what values are
acceptable.

This is a good question for people working with other hardware.


-- 
Vinicius

Powered by blists - more mailing lists