netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH net-next v4 2/6] devlink: Extend devlink-rate api with queues and new parameters

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: <24690f01-5a4b-840b-52b7-bdc0e6b9376a@gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 20 Sep 2022 12:09:04 +0100
From:   Edward Cree <ecree.xilinx@...il.com>
To:     "Wilczynski, Michal" <michal.wilczynski@...el.com>,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     alexandr.lobakin@...el.com, dchumak@...dia.com, maximmi@...dia.com,
        jiri@...nulli.us, simon.horman@...igine.com,
        jacob.e.keller@...el.com, jesse.brandeburg@...el.com,
        przemyslaw.kitszel@...el.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH net-next v4 2/6] devlink: Extend devlink-rate api with
 queues and new parameters

On 19/09/2022 14:12, Wilczynski, Michal wrote:
> Maybe a switchdev case would be a good parallel here. When you enable switchdev, you get port representors on
> the host for each VF that is already attached to the VM. Something that gives the host power to configure
> netdev that it doesn't 'own'. So it seems to me like giving user more power to configure things from the host
> is acceptable.

Right that's the thing though: I instinctively Want this to be done
 through representors somehow, because it _looks_ like it ought to
 be scoped to a single netdev; but that forces the hierarchy to
 respect netdev boundaries which as we've discussed is an unwelcome
 limitation.

> In my mind this is a device-wide configuration, since the ice driver registers each port as a separate pci device.
> And each of this devices have their own hardware Tx Scheduler tree global to that port. Queues that we're
> discussing are actually hardware queues, and are identified by hardware assigned txq_id.

In general, hardware being a single unit at the device level does
 not necessarily mean its configuration should be device-wide.
For instance, in many NICs each port has a single hardware v-switch,
 but we do not have some kind of "devlink filter" API to program it
 directly.  Instead we attach TC rules to _many_ netdevs, and driver
 code transforms and combines these to program the unitary device.
"device-wide configuration" originally meant things like firmware
 version or operating mode (legacy vs. switchdev) that do not relate
 directly to netdevs.

But I agree with you that your approach is the "least evil method";
 if properly explained and documented then I don't have any
 remaining objection to your patch, despite that I'm continuing to
 take the opportunity to proselytise for "reprs >> devlink" ;)

-ed