netdev - Re: [PATCH v7 net-next 00/18] Introducing P4TC

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: Mon, 16 Oct 2023 16:38:08 -0400
From: Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, anjali.singhai@...el.com, namrata.limaye@...el.com, 
	deb.chatterjee@...el.com, john.andy.fingerhut@...el.com, dan.daly@...el.com, 
	Vipin.Jain@....com, tom@...anda.io, mleitner@...hat.com, 
	Mahesh.Shirshyad@....com, tomasz.osinski@...el.com, jiri@...nulli.us, 
	xiyou.wangcong@...il.com, davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com, 
	pabeni@...hat.com, vladbu@...dia.com, horms@...nel.org, khalidm@...dia.com, 
	toke@...hat.com, mattyk@...dia.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 net-next 00/18] Introducing P4TC

On Mon, Oct 16, 2023 at 4:15 PM Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 05:35:31 -0400 Jamal Hadi Salim wrote:
> > Changes In RFC Version 7
> > -------------------------
> >
> > 0) First time removing the RFC tag!
> >
> > 1) Removed XDP cookie. It turns out as was pointed out by Toke(Thanks!) - that
> > using bpf links was sufficient to protect us from someone replacing or deleting
> > a eBPF program after it has been bound to a netdev.
> >
> > 2) Add some reviewed-bys from Vlad.
> >
> > 3) Small bug fixes from v6 based on testing for ebpf.
> >
> > 4) Added the counter extern as a sample extern. Illustrating this example because
> >    it is slightly complex since it is possible to invoke it directly from
> >    the P4TC domain (in case of direct counters) or from eBPF (indirect counters).
> >    It is not exactly the most efficient implementation (a reasonable counter impl
> >    should be per-cpu).
>
> I think that I already shared my reservations about this series.

And please please let's have a _technical_ discussion on reservations
not hyperboles.

> On top of that, please, please, please make sure that it builds cleanly
> before posting.
>
> I took the shared infra 8 hours to munch thru this series, and it threw
> out all sorts of warnings. 8 hours during which I could not handle any
> PR or high-prio patch :( Not your fault that builds are slow, I guess,
> but if you are throwing a huge series at the list for the what-ever'th
> time, it'd be great if it at least built cleanly :(

We absolutely dont want to add unnecessary work.
Probably we may have missed the net-next tip? We'll pull the latest
and retest with tip.
Is there a link that we can look at on what the infra does so we can
make sure it works per expectation next time?
If you know what kind of warnings/issues so we can avoid it going forward?
Note: We didnt see any and we built each patch separately on gcc 11,
12, 13 and clang 16.
BTW: Lore does reorder the patches, but i am assuming cicd is smart
enough to understand this?

> FWIW please do not post another version this week (not that I think
> that you would do that, but better safe than sorry. Last week the patch
> bombs pushed the shared infra 24h+ behind the list..)

Not intending to.

cheers,
jamal

> --
> pw-bot: cr