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:   Tue, 26 Jan 2021 00:09:25 +0000
From:   Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com>
To:     Vinicius Costa Gomes <vinicius.gomes@...el.com>
CC:     "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "jhs@...atatu.com" <jhs@...atatu.com>,
        "xiyou.wangcong@...il.com" <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
        "jiri@...nulli.us" <jiri@...nulli.us>,
        "kuba@...nel.org" <kuba@...nel.org>,
        "Jose.Abreu@...opsys.com" <Jose.Abreu@...opsys.com>,
        Po Liu <po.liu@....com>,
        "intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org" <intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org>,
        "anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com" <anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com>,
        "mkubecek@...e.cz" <mkubecek@...e.cz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v3 2/8] taprio: Add support for frame preemption
 offload

On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 02:44:47PM -0800, Vinicius Costa Gomes wrote:
> +	/* It's valid to enable frame preemption without any kind of
> +	 * offloading being enabled, so keep it separated.
> +	 */
> +	if (tb[TCA_TAPRIO_ATTR_PREEMPT_TCS]) {
> +		u32 preempt = nla_get_u32(tb[TCA_TAPRIO_ATTR_PREEMPT_TCS]);
> +		struct tc_preempt_qopt_offload qopt = { };
> +
> +		if (preempt == U32_MAX) {
> +			NL_SET_ERR_MSG(extack, "At least one queue must be not be preemptible");
> +			err = -EINVAL;
> +			goto free_sched;
> +		}
> +
> +		qopt.preemptible_queues = tc_map_to_queue_mask(dev, preempt);
> +
> +		err = dev->netdev_ops->ndo_setup_tc(dev, TC_SETUP_PREEMPT,
> +						    &qopt);
> +		if (err)
> +			goto free_sched;
> +
> +		q->preemptible_tcs = preempt;
> +	}
> +

First I'm interested in the means: why check for preempt == U32_MAX when
you determine that all traffic classes are preemptible? What if less
than 32 traffic classes are used by the netdev? The check will be
bypassed, won't it?

Secondly, why should at least one queue be preemptible? What's wrong
with frame preemption being triggered by a tc-taprio window smaller than
the packet size? This can happen regardless of traffic class.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ