netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH net-next 1/3] net: ethtool: add symmetric Toeplitz RSS hash function

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: Thu, 24 Aug 2023 17:43:36 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Ahmed Zaki <ahmed.zaki@...el.com>
Cc: <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>,
 <anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com>, Willem de Bruijn
 <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH net-next 1/3] net: ethtool: add symmetric Toeplitz
 RSS hash function

On Thu, 24 Aug 2023 16:55:40 -0600 Ahmed Zaki wrote:
> When "Symmetric Toeplitz" is set in the NIC, the H/W will yield the same 
> hash as the regular Toeplitz for protocol types that do not have such 
> symmetric fields in both directions (i.e. there will be no RSS hash 
> symmetry and the TX/RX traffic will land on different Rx queues).
>
> The goal of this series is to enable the "default" behavior of the whole 
> device ("-X hfunc") to be the symmetric hash (again, only for protocols 
> that have symmetric src/dst counterparts). If I understand the first 
> option correctly, the user would need to manually configure all RXH 
> fields for all flow types (tcp4, udp4, sctp4, tcp6, ..etc), to get 
> symmetric RSS on them, instead of the proposed single "-X" command? 
> The second option is closer to what I had in mind. We can re-name and 
> provide any details.

I'm just trying to help, if you want a single knob you'd need to add
new fields to the API and the RXFH API is not netlink-ified.

Using hashing algo for configuring fields feels like a dirty hack.

> I agree that we will need to take care of some cases like if the user 
> removes only "source IP" or "destination port" from the hash fields, 
> without that field's counterpart (we can prevent this, or show a 
> warning, ..etc). I was planning to address that in a follow-up
> series; ie. handling the "ethtool -U rx-flow-hash". Do you want that
> to be included in the same series as well?

Yes, the validation needs to be part of the same series. But the
semantics of selecting only src or dst need to be established, too.
You said you feed dst ^ src into the hashing twice - why?