netdev - Re: [RFC bpf-next v2 11/11] net/mlx5e: Support TX timestamp metadata

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: Sat, 24 Jun 2023 18:12:54 -0700
From: Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>, John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>, 
	Donald Hunter <donald.hunter@...il.com>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, 
	Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>, Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>, 
	Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>, Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...ux.dev>, Song Liu <song@...nel.org>, 
	Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>, KP Singh <kpsingh@...nel.org>, Hao Luo <haoluo@...gle.com>, 
	Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>, Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC bpf-next v2 11/11] net/mlx5e: Support TX timestamp metadata

On 06/24, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Jun 2023 19:52:03 -0700 Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > That's pretty much what I'm suggesting.
> > Add two driver specific __weak nop hook points where necessary
> > with few driver specific kfuncs.
> > Don't build generic infra when it's too early to generalize.
> > 
> > It would mean that bpf progs will be driver specific,
> > but when something novel like this is being proposed it's better
> > to start with minimal code change to core kernel (ideally none)
> > and when common things are found then generalize.
> > 
> > Sounds like Stanislav use case is timestamps in TX
> > while Donald's are checksums on RX, TX. These use cases are too different.
> > To make HW TX checksum compute checksum driven by AF_XDP
> > a lot more needs to be done than what Stan is proposing for timestamps.
> 
> I'd think HW TX csum is actually simpler than dealing with time,
> will you change your mind if Stan posts Tx csum within a few days? :)
> 
> The set of offloads is barely changing, the lack of clarity 
> on what is needed seems overstated. IMHO AF_XDP is getting no use
> today, because everything remotely complex was stripped out of 
> the implementation to get it merged. Aren't we hand waving the
> complexity away simply because we don't want to deal with it?
> 
> These are the features today's devices support (rx/tx is a mirror):
>  - L4 csum
>  - segmentation
>  - time reporting
> 
> Some may also support:
>  - forwarding md tagging
>  - Tx launch time
>  - no fcs
> Legacy / irrelevant:
>  - VLAN insertion

Right, the goal of the series is to lay out the foundation to support
AF_XDP offloads. I'm starting with tx timestamp because that's more
pressing. But, as I mentioned in another thread, we do have other
users that want to adopt AF_XDP, but due to missing tx offloads, they
aren't able to.

IMHO, with pre-tx/post-tx hooks, it's pretty easy to go from TX
timestamp to TX checksum offload, we don't need a lot:
- define another generic kfunc bpf_request_tx_csum(from, to)
- drivers implement it
- af_xdp users call this kfunc from devtx hook

We seem to be arguing over start-with-my-specific-narrow-use-case vs
start-with-generic implementation, so maybe time for the office hours?
I can try to present some cohesive plan of how we start with the framework
plus tx-timestamp and expand with tx-checksum/etc. There is a lot of
commonality in these offloads, so I'm probably not communicating it
properly..