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: Sun, 29 Oct 2023 10:59:42 -0600
From: Ahmed Zaki <>
To: Gal Pressman <>, Jakub Kicinski <>,
	"Alexander H Duyck" <>
CC: <>, <>, <>,
	Wojciech Drewek <>, <>,
	<>, <>,
	<>, <>,
	<>, <>, <>,
	Jacob Keller <>, <>,
	<>, <>
Subject: Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH net-next v4 1/6] net: ethtool: allow
 symmetric-xor RSS hash for any flow type

On 2023-10-29 06:48, Gal Pressman wrote:
> On 29/10/2023 14:42, Ahmed Zaki wrote:
>> On 2023-10-29 06:25, Gal Pressman wrote:
>>> On 21/10/2023 3:00, Ahmed Zaki wrote:
>>>> On 2023-10-20 17:49, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 20 Oct 2023 17:14:11 -0600 Ahmed Zaki wrote:
>>>>>> I replied to that here:
>>>>>> I am kind of confused now so please bear with me. ethtool either sends
>>>>>> "ethtool_rxfh" or "ethtool_rxnfc". AFAIK "ethtool_rxfh" is the
>>>>>> interface
>>>>>> for "ethtool -X" which is used to set the RSS algorithm. But we
>>>>>> kind of
>>>>>> agreed to go with "ethtool -U|-N" for symmetric-xor, and that uses
>>>>>> "ethtool_rxnfc" (as implemented in this series).
>>>>> I have no strong preference. Sounds like Alex prefers to keep it closer
>>>>> to algo, which is "ethtool_rxfh".
>>>>>> Do you mean use "ethtool_rxfh" instead of "ethtool_rxnfc"? how would
>>>>>> that work on the ethtool user interface?
>>>>> I don't know what you're asking of us. If you find the code to
>>>>> confusing
>>>>> maybe someone at Intel can help you :|
>>>> The code is straightforward. I am confused by the requirements: don't
>>>> add a new algorithm but use "ethtool_rxfh".
>>>> I'll see if I can get more help, may be I am missing something.
>>> What was the decision here?
>>> Is this going to be exposed through ethtool -N or -X?
>> I am working on a new version that uses "ethtool_rxfh" to set the
>> symmetric-xor. The user will set per-device via:
>> ethtool -X eth0 hfunc toeplitz symmetric-xor
>> then specify the per-flow type RSS fields as usual:
>> ethtool -N|-U eth0 rx-flow-hash <flow_type> s|d|f|n
>> The downside is that all flow-types will have to be either symmetric or
>> asymmetric.
> Why are we making the interface less flexible than it can be with -N?

Alexander Duyck prefers to implement the "symmetric-xor" interface as an 
algorithm or extension (please refer to previous messages), but ethtool 
does not provide flowtype/RSS fields setting via "-X". The above was the 
best solution that we (at Intel) could think of.

Another solution would be to add a similar flowtype interface to "-X":

ethtool -X eth0 hfunc toeplitz [symmetric-xor rx-flow-hash <flow_type>]

which will allow the user to set "symmetric-xor" per flow-type. IMHO 
such approach is confusing; consider if the user sets:

ethtool -X eth0 ALG-1 symmetric-xor rx-flow-hash tcp4

and then:

ethtool -X eth0 ALG-2

should we switch tcp4 to ALG-2? Also, just the idea of replicating 
"rx-flow-hash" did not sound good overall to me.

Anyway, we thought that, if we are using "-X", then limiting all 
flow-types to whatever is set with "-X" is cleaner and works best with 
the current ethtool design. Any other suggestions are welcome of course.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists