netdev - Re: [PATCH v2 net-next 21/26] ice: add XDP and XSK generic per-channel statistics

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: <20211126111431.4a2ed007@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
Date:   Fri, 26 Nov 2021 11:14:31 -0800
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>
Cc:     Alexander Lobakin <alexandr.lobakin@...el.com>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jesse Brandeburg <jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>,
        Michal Swiatkowski <michal.swiatkowski@...ux.intel.com>,
        Maciej Fijalkowski <maciej.fijalkowski@...el.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Shay Agroskin <shayagr@...zon.com>,
        Arthur Kiyanovski <akiyano@...zon.com>,
        David Arinzon <darinzon@...zon.com>,
        Noam Dagan <ndagan@...zon.com>,
        Saeed Bishara <saeedb@...zon.com>,
        Ioana Ciornei <ioana.ciornei@....com>,
        Claudiu Manoil <claudiu.manoil@....com>,
        Tony Nguyen <anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com>,
        Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...tlin.com>,
        Marcin Wojtas <mw@...ihalf.com>,
        Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
        Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...dia.com>,
        Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Jesper Dangaard Brouer <hawk@...nel.org>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
        Edward Cree <ecree.xilinx@...il.com>,
        Martin Habets <habetsm.xilinx@...il.com>,
        "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
        Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
        Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>,
        Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
        KP Singh <kpsingh@...nel.org>,
        Lorenzo Bianconi <lorenzo@...nel.org>,
        Yajun Deng <yajun.deng@...ux.dev>,
        Sergey Ryazanov <ryazanov.s.a@...il.com>,
        David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>,
        Andrei Vagin <avagin@...il.com>,
        Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@...el.com>,
        Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com>,
        Cong Wang <cong.wang@...edance.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
        virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 net-next 21/26] ice: add XDP and XSK generic
 per-channel statistics

On Fri, 26 Nov 2021 19:47:17 +0100 Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
> > Fair. In all honesty I said that hoping to push for a more flexible
> > approach hidden entirely in BPF, and not involving driver changes.
> > Assuming the XDP program has more fine grained stats we should be able
> > to extract those instead of double-counting. Hence my vague "let's work
> > with apps" comment.
> >
> > For example to a person familiar with the workload it'd be useful to
> > know if program returned XDP_DROP because of configured policy or
> > failure to parse a packet. I don't think that sort distinction is
> > achievable at the level of standard stats.
> >
> > The information required by the admin is higher level. As you say the
> > primary concern there is "how many packets did XDP eat".  
> 
> Right, sure, I am also totally fine with having only a somewhat
> restricted subset of stats available at the interface level and make
> everything else be BPF-based. I'm hoping we can converge of a common
> understanding of what this "minimal set" should be :)
> 
> > Speaking of which, one thing that badly needs clarification is our
> > expectation around XDP packets getting counted towards the interface
> > stats.  
> 
> Agreed. My immediate thought is that "XDP packets are interface packets"
> but that is certainly not what we do today, so not sure if changing it
> at this point would break things?

I'd vote for taking the risk and trying to align all the drivers.