netdev - Re: [net-next 10/10] net/mlx5e: Add support for PCI relaxed ordering

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]

Date:   Sun, 8 Jul 2040 11:22:12 +0300
From:   Aya Levin <ayal@...lanox.com>
To:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, helgaas@...nel.org
Cc:     kuba@...nel.org, saeedm@...lanox.com, mkubecek@...e.cz,
        linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        tariqt@...lanox.com, alexander.h.duyck@...ux.intel.com,
        Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [net-next 10/10] net/mlx5e: Add support for PCI relaxed ordering



On 7/6/2020 10:49 PM, David Miller wrote:
> From: Aya Levin <ayal@...lanox.com>
> Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2020 16:00:59 +0300
> 
>> Assuming the discussions with Bjorn will conclude in a well-trusted
>> API that ensures relaxed ordering in enabled, I'd still like a method
>> to turn off relaxed ordering for performance debugging sake.
>> Bjorn highlighted the fact that the PCIe sub system can only offer a
>> query method. Even if theoretically a set API will be provided, this
>> will not fit a netdev debugging - I wonder if CPU vendors even support
>> relaxed ordering set/unset...
>> On the driver's side relaxed ordering is an attribute of the mkey and
>> should be available for configuration (similar to number of CPU
>> vs. number of channels).
>> Based on the above, and binding the driver's default relaxed ordering
>> to the return value from pcie_relaxed_ordering_enabled(), may I
>> continue with previous direction of a private-flag to control the
>> client side (my driver) ?
> 
> I don't like this situation at all.
> 
> If RO is so dodgy that it potentially needs to be disabled, that is
> going to be an issue not just with networking devices but also with
> storage and other device types as well.
> 
> Will every device type have a custom way to disable RO, thus
> inconsistently, in order to accomodate this?
> 
> That makes no sense and is a terrible user experience.
> 
> That's why the knob belongs generically in PCI or similar.
> 
Hi Bjorn,

Mellanox NIC supports relaxed ordering operation over DMA buffers. 
However for debug prepossess we must have a chicken bit to disable 
relaxed ordering on a specific system without effecting others in 
run-time. In order to meet this requirement, I added a netdev 
private-flag to ethtool for set RO API.

Dave raised a concern regarding embedding relaxed ordering set API per 
system (networking, storage and others). We need the ability to manage 
relaxed ordering in a unify manner. Could you please define a PCI 
sub-system solution to meet this requirement?

Aya.