netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 0/5] devlink rate police limiter

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: <Ys5SRCNwD8prZ0pL@nanopsycho>
Date:   Wed, 13 Jul 2022 07:04:04 +0200
From:   Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc:     Jiri Pirko <jiri@...dia.com>, Dima Chumak <dchumak@...dia.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        Simon Horman <horms@...ge.net.au>,
        Michal Wilczynski <michal.wilczynski@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 0/5] devlink rate police limiter

Wed, Jul 13, 2022 at 02:13:41AM CEST, kuba@...nel.org wrote:
>On Tue, 12 Jul 2022 08:03:40 +0200 Jiri Pirko wrote:
>> >AFAIU the problem is that you want to control endpoints which are not
>> >ndevs with this API. Is that the main or only reason? Can we agree that
>> >it's legitimate but will result in muddying the netdev model (which in
>> >itself is good and complete)?  
>> 
>> I don't think this has anything to do with netdev model. 
>> It is actually out of the scope of it, therefore there cannot be any mudding of it.
>
>You should have decided that rate limiting was out of scope for netdev
>before we added tc qdisc and tc police support. Now those offloads are
>there, used by people and it's too late.
>
>If you want to create a common way to rate limit functions you must
>provide plumbing for the existing methods (at least tc police,
>preferably legacy NDO as well) to automatically populate the new API.

Even if there is no netdevice to hook it to, because it does not exist?
I have to be missing something, sorry :/