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: <20231018103703.41fd4d9b@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2023 10:37:03 -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

On Wed, 18 Oct 2023 10:53:02 +0900 takeru hayasaka wrote:
> For instance, there are PGWs that have the capability to separate the
> termination of communication of 4G LTE users into Control and User
> planes (C/U).
> This is quite convenient from a scalability perspective. In fact, in
> 5G UPF, the communication is explicitly only on the User plane
> (Uplane).
> 
> Therefore, services are expected to receive only GTPU traffic (e.g.,
> PGW-U, UPF) or only GTPC traffic (e.g., PGW-C). Hence, there arises a
> necessity to use only GTPU.
> 
> If we do not distinguish packets into Control/User (C/U) with options
> like gtp4|6, I can conceive scenarios where performance tuning becomes
> challenging.
> For example, in cases where we want to process only the control
> communication (GTPC) using Flow Director on specific CPUs, while
> processing GTPU on the remaining cores.
> In scenarios like IoT, where user communication is minimal but the
> volume of devices is vast, the control traffic could substantially
> increase. Thus, this might also be possible in reverse.
> In short, this pertains to being mindful of CPU core affinity.
> 
> If we were to propose again, setting aside considerations specific to
> Intel, I believe, considering the users of ethtool, the smallest units
> should be gtpu4|6 and gtpc4|6.
> Regarding Extension Headers and such, I think it would be more
> straightforward to handle them implicitly.
> 
> What does everyone else think?

Harald went further and questioned use of the same IP addresses for 
-U and -C traffic, but even within one endpoint aren't these running
on a different port? Can someone reasonably use the same UDP port
for both types of traffic?