netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 8/9] net: hns3: add support for queue bonding mode of flow director

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:   Thu, 18 Mar 2021 09:02:54 +0800
From:   Huazhong Tan <tanhuazhong@...wei.com>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
CC:     <davem@...emloft.net>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        <salil.mehta@...wei.com>, <yisen.zhuang@...wei.com>,
        <huangdaode@...wei.com>, <linuxarm@...neuler.org>,
        <linuxarm@...wei.com>, Jian Shen <shenjian15@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 8/9] net: hns3: add support for queue bonding
 mode of flow director


On 2021/3/16 4:04, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Mar 2021 20:23:50 +0800 Huazhong Tan wrote:
>> From: Jian Shen <shenjian15@...wei.com>
>>
>> For device version V3, it supports queue bonding, which can
>> identify the tuple information of TCP stream, and create flow
>> director rules automatically, in order to keep the tx and rx
>> packets are in the same queue pair. The driver set FD_ADD
>> field of TX BD for TCP SYN packet, and set FD_DEL filed for
>> TCP FIN or RST packet. The hardware create or remove a fd rule
>> according to the TX BD, and it also support to age-out a rule
>> if not hit for a long time.
>>
>> The queue bonding mode is default to be disabled, and can be
>> enabled/disabled with ethtool priv-flags command.
> This seems like fairly well defined behavior, IMHO we should have a full
> device feature for it, rather than a private flag.


Should we add a NETIF_F_NTUPLE_HW feature for it?


> Does the device need to be able to parse the frame fully for this
> mechanism to work? Will it work even if the TCP segment is encapsulated
> in a custom tunnel?


no, custom tunnel is not supported.