netdev - Re: [PATCH RESEND net-next v3 00/18] devlink: rate objects API

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:   Wed, 2 Jun 2021 09:58:24 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     <dlinkin@...dia.com>
Cc:     <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <davem@...emloft.net>, <jiri@...dia.com>,
        <stephen@...workplumber.org>, <dsahern@...il.com>,
        <vladbu@...dia.com>, <parav@...dia.com>, <huyn@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND net-next v3 00/18] devlink: rate objects API

On Wed, 2 Jun 2021 15:17:13 +0300 dlinkin@...dia.com wrote:
> From: Dmytro Linkin <dlinkin@...dia.com>
> 
> Resending without RFC.
> 
> Currently kernel provides a way to change tx rate of single VF in
> switchdev mode via tc-police action. When lots of VFs are configured
> management of theirs rates becomes non-trivial task and some grouping
> mechanism is required. Implementing such grouping in tc-police will bring
> flow related limitations and unwanted complications, like:
> - tc-police is a policer and there is a user request for a traffic
>   shaper, so shared tc-police action is not suitable;
> - flows requires net device to be placed on, means "groups" wouldn't
>   have net device instance itself. Taking into the account previous
>   point was reviewed a sollution, when representor have a policer and
>   the driver use a shaper if qdisc contains group of VFs - such approach
>   ugly, compilated and misleading;
> - TC is ingress only, while configuring "other" side of the wire looks
>   more like a "real" picture where shaping is outside of the steering
>   world, similar to "ip link" command;
> 
> According to that devlink is the most appropriate place.

I don't think you researched TC well enough. But whatever, I'm tired 
of being the only one who pushes back given I neither work on or use
any of these features.

You need to provide a real implementation for this new uAPI, tho.
netdevsim won't cut it.