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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 4 Jun 2021 09:59:11 +0800
From:   Yunsheng Lin <linyunsheng@...wei.com>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, <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>,
        Simon Horman <simon.horman@...ronome.com>,
        <louis.peens@...ronome.com>, <baowen.zheng@...igine.com>,
        <idosch@...sch.org>, <mleitner@...hat.com>, <vlad@...lov.dev>,
        Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>, <jianbol@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND net-next v3 00/18] devlink: rate objects API

On 2021/6/3 0:58, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> 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.

tc action offload feature used in [1] seems to solve the
police action lifecycle problem?

And it seem to allow different flow to use the same action,
I am not sure if different function can use the same action,
it seems jianbo has mentioned about the same usecase?

1. https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/CALnP8ZaZQAbvm1girLUSLcFZTKV5MvBMEtN67OiA55OAvsO_1Q@mail.gmail.com/T/