netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH] net: introduce HW Rate Limiting Driver API

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <ZqpgaUlM5MQKTOwR@nanopsycho.orion>
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2024 18:03:53 +0200
From: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
To: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
	Madhu Chittim <madhu.chittim@...el.com>,
	Sridhar Samudrala <sridhar.samudrala@...el.com>,
	Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>,
	John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
	Sunil Kovvuri Goutham <sgoutham@...vell.com>,
	Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] net: introduce HW Rate Limiting Driver API

Tue, Jul 30, 2024 at 03:34:24PM CEST, pabeni@...hat.com wrote:
>Hi,
>
>On 7/30/24 14:18, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>> Wed, May 08, 2024 at 10:20:51PM CEST, pabeni@...hat.com wrote:
>> 
>> > + * NET_SHAPER_SCOPE_QUEUE are available on both PFs and VFs devices.
>> 
>> This is interesting. Do you mean you can put a shaper on a specific VF
>> queue from hypervisor? I was thinking about it recently, I have some
>> concerns.
>> 
>> In general a nic user expects all queues to behave in the same way,
>> unless he does some sort of configuration (dcb for example).
>> VF (the VM side) is not different, it's also a nic.
>> 
>> If you allow the hypervisor to configure shapers on specifig VF queues,
>> you are breaking VM's user expectation. He did not configure any
>> different queue treating, yet they are treated differently.
>> 
>> Is that okay? What do you think?
>
>I'm unsure why you are looking to this old version...
>
>The idea to allow configuring the VF's queues from the hypervisor has been
>removed from the most recent version, for roughly the same reasons you
>mention above.

Okay. Thanks!

>
>Cheers,
>
>Paolo
>
>