netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v2] ethtool: ice: Support for RSS settings to GTP from ethtool

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: <20231016152343.1fc7c7be@kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2023 15:23:43 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Takeru Hayasaka <hayatake396@...il.com>
Cc: Jesse Brandeburg <jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>, Tony Nguyen
 <anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com>, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric
 Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
 intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Willem de Bruijn
 <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>, Harald Welte <laforge@...monks.org>,
 Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...filter.org>, osmocom-net-gprs@...ts.osmocom.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2] ethtool: ice: Support for RSS settings to
 GTP from ethtool

Thanks for the v2!

Adding Willem, Pablo, and Harald to CC (please CC them on future
versions).

On Thu, 12 Oct 2023 06:01:15 +0000 Takeru Hayasaka wrote:
> diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/ethtool.h b/include/uapi/linux/ethtool.h
> index f7fba0dc87e5..a2d4f2081cf3 100644
> --- a/include/uapi/linux/ethtool.h
> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/ethtool.h
> @@ -2011,6 +2011,18 @@ static inline int ethtool_validate_duplex(__u8 duplex)
>  #define	IPV4_FLOW	0x10	/* hash only */
>  #define	IPV6_FLOW	0x11	/* hash only */
>  #define	ETHER_FLOW	0x12	/* spec only (ether_spec) */
> +#define GTPU_V4_FLOW 0x13	/* hash only */
> +#define GTPU_V6_FLOW 0x14	/* hash only */
> +#define GTPC_V4_FLOW 0x15	/* hash only */
> +#define GTPC_V6_FLOW 0x16	/* hash only */
> +#define GTPC_TEID_V4_FLOW 0x17	/* hash only */
> +#define GTPC_TEID_V6_FLOW 0x18	/* hash only */
> +#define GTPU_EH_V4_FLOW 0x19	/* hash only */
> +#define GTPU_EH_V6_FLOW 0x20	/* hash only */

nit: please note that these are hex numbers,
     next value after 0x19 is 0x1a, not 0x20.

> +#define GTPU_UL_V4_FLOW 0x21	/* hash only */
> +#define GTPU_UL_V6_FLOW 0x22	/* hash only */
> +#define GTPU_DL_V4_FLOW 0x23	/* hash only */
> +#define GTPU_DL_V6_FLOW 0x24	/* hash only */
>  /* Flag to enable additional fields in struct ethtool_rx_flow_spec */
>  #define	FLOW_EXT	0x80000000
>  #define	FLOW_MAC_EXT	0x40000000

What gives me pause here is the number of flow sub-types we define
for GTP hashing.

My understanding of GTP is limited to what I just read on Wikipedia.

IIUC the GTPC vs GTPU distinction comes down to the UDP port on
which the protocol runs? Are the frames also different?

I'm guessing UL/DL are uplink/downlink but what's EH?

How do GTPU_V4_FLOW, GTPU_EH_V4_FLOW, GTPU_UL_V4_FLOW, and
GTPU_DL_V4_FLOW differ?

Key question is - are there reasonable use cases that you can think of
for enabling GTP hashing for each one of those bits individually or can
we combine some of them?

> @@ -2025,6 +2037,7 @@ static inline int ethtool_validate_duplex(__u8 duplex)
>  #define	RXH_IP_DST	(1 << 5)
>  #define	RXH_L4_B_0_1	(1 << 6) /* src port in case of TCP/UDP/SCTP */
>  #define	RXH_L4_B_2_3	(1 << 7) /* dst port in case of TCP/UDP/SCTP */
> +#define	RXH_GTP_TEID	(1 << 8) /* teid in case of GTP */
>  #define	RXH_DISCARD	(1 << 31)