netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 0/5] mlxsw: Add support for RED qevent "mark"

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: <20210119142255.1caca7fb@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
Date:   Tue, 19 Jan 2021 14:22:55 -0800
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     Ido Schimmel <idosch@...sch.org>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net, petrm@...dia.com,
        jiri@...dia.com, amcohen@...dia.com, mlxsw@...dia.com,
        Ido Schimmel <idosch@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 0/5] mlxsw: Add support for RED qevent "mark"

On Sun, 17 Jan 2021 10:02:18 +0200 Ido Schimmel wrote:
> From: Ido Schimmel <idosch@...dia.com>
> 
> The RED qdisc currently supports two qevents: "early_drop" and "mark". The
> filters added to the block bound to the "early_drop" qevent are executed on
> packets for which the RED algorithm decides that they should be
> early-dropped. The "mark" filters are similarly executed on ECT packets
> that are marked as ECN-CE (Congestion Encountered).
> 
> A previous patchset has offloaded "early_drop" filters on Spectrum-2 and
> later, provided that the classifier used is "matchall", that the action
> used is either "trap" or "mirred", and a handful or further limitations.

For early_drop trap or mirred makes obvious sense, no explanation
needed.

But for marked as a user I'd like to see a _copy_ of the packet, 
while the original continues on its marry way to the destination.
I'd venture to say that e.g. for a DCTCP deployment mark+trap is
unusable, at least for tracing, because it distorts the operation 
by effectively dropping instead of marking.

Am I reading this right?

If that is the case and you really want to keep the mark+trap
functionality - I feel like at least better documentation is needed.
The current two liner should also be rewritten, quoting from patch 1:

> * - ``ecn_mark``
>   - ``drop``
>   - Traps ECN-capable packets that were marked with CE (Congestion
>     Encountered) code point by RED algorithm instead of being dropped

That needs to say that the trap is for datagrams trapped by a qevent.
Otherwise "Traps ... instead of being dropped" is too much of a
thought-shortcut, marked packets are not dropped.

(I'd also think that trap is better documented next to early_drop,
let's look at it from the reader's perspective)