netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] net/smc: add support for netdevice in containers.

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: <20231012121740.GR92403@linux.alibaba.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2023 20:17:40 +0800
From: Dust Li <dust.li@...ux.alibaba.com>
To: Niklas Schnelle <schnelle@...ux.ibm.com>,
	Albert Huang <huangjie.albert@...edance.com>,
	Karsten Graul <kgraul@...ux.ibm.com>,
	Wenjia Zhang <wenjia@...ux.ibm.com>,
	Jan Karcher <jaka@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc: "D. Wythe" <alibuda@...ux.alibaba.com>,
	Tony Lu <tonylu@...ux.alibaba.com>,
	Wen Gu <guwen@...ux.alibaba.com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
	Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
	linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] net/smc: add support for netdevice in
 containers.

On Wed, Oct 11, 2023 at 10:48:16PM +0800, Dust Li wrote:
>On Thu, Sep 28, 2023 at 05:04:21PM +0200, Niklas Schnelle wrote:
>>On Mon, 2023-09-25 at 10:35 +0800, Albert Huang wrote:
>>> If the netdevice is within a container and communicates externally
>>> through network technologies like VXLAN, we won't be able to find
>>> routing information in the init_net namespace. To address this issue,
>>> we need to add a struct net parameter to the smc_ib_find_route function.
>>> This allow us to locate the routing information within the corresponding
>>> net namespace, ensuring the correct completion of the SMC CLC interaction.
>>> 
>>> Signed-off-by: Albert Huang <huangjie.albert@...edance.com>
>>> ---
>>>  net/smc/af_smc.c | 3 ++-
>>>  net/smc/smc_ib.c | 7 ++++---
>>>  net/smc/smc_ib.h | 2 +-
>>>  3 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>> 
>>
>>I'm trying to test this patch on s390x but I'm running into the same
>>issue I ran into with the original SMC namespace
>>support:https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/8701fa4557026983a9ec687cfdd7ac5b3b85fd39.camel@linux.ibm.com/
>>
>>Just like back then I'm using a server and a client network namespace
>>on the same system with two ConnectX-4 VFs from the same card and port.
>>Both TCP/IP traffic as well as user-space RDMA via "qperf … rc_bw" and
>>`qperf … rc_lat` work between namespaces and definitely go via the
>>card.
>>
>>I did use "rdma system set netns exclusive" then moved the RDMA devices
>>into the namespaces with "rdma dev set <rdma_dev> netns <namespace>". I
>>also verified with "ip netns exec <namespace> rdma dev"
>>that the RDMA devices are in the network namespace and as seen by the
>>qperf runs normal RDMA does work.
>>
>>For reference the smc_chck tool gives me the following output:
>>
>>Server started on port 37373
>>[DEBUG] Interfaces to check: eno4378
>>Test with target IP 10.10.93.12 and port 37373
>>  Live test (SMC-D and SMC-R)
>>[DEBUG] Running client: smc_run /tmp/echo-clt.x0q8iO 10.10.93.12 -p
>>37373
>>[DEBUG] Client result: TCP 0x05000000/0x03030000
>>     Failed  (TCP fallback), reasons:
>>          Client:        0x05000000   Peer declined during handshake
>>          Server:        0x03030000   No SMC devices found (R and D)
>>
>>I also checked that SMC is generally working, once I add an ISM device
>>I do get SMC-D between the namespaces. Any ideas what could break SMC-R
>>here?
>
>I missed the email :(
>
>Are you running SMC-Rv2 or v1 ?

Hi Niklas,

I tried your test today, and I encounter the same issue.
But I found it's because my 2 VFs are in difference subnets,
SMC-Rv2 work fine, SMC-Rv1 won't work, which is expected.
When I set the 2 VFs in the same subnet, SMC-Rv1 also works.

So I'm not sure it's the same for you. Can you check it out ?

BTW, the fallback reason(SMC_CLC_DECL_NOSMCDEV) in this case
is really not friendly, it's better to return SMC_CLC_DECL_DIFFPREFIX.

Best regards,
Dust


>
>Best regards,
>Dust
>
>
>>
>>Thanks,
>>Niklas