netdev - Re: [PATCH v3 04/12] net-shapers: implement NL set and delete operations

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: <Zq0GJDGsfOt5MiAj@nanopsycho.orion>
Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2024 18:15:32 +0200
From: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.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: [PATCH v3 04/12] net-shapers: implement NL set and delete
 operations

Thu, Aug 01, 2024 at 05:39:24PM CEST, kuba@...nel.org wrote:
>On Thu, 1 Aug 2024 17:25:50 +0200 Paolo Abeni wrote:
>> When deleting a queue-level shaper, the orchestrator is "returning" the 
>> ownership of the queue from the container to the host. If the container 

What do you meam by "orchestrator" and "container" here? I'm missing
these from the picture.


>> wants to move the queue around e.g. from:
>> 
>> q1 ----- \
>> q2 - \SP1/ RR1

What "sp" and "rr" stand for. What are the "scopes" of these?


>> q3 - /        \
>>      q4 - \ RR2 -> RR(root)
>>      q5 - /    /
>>      q6 - \ RR3
>>      q7 - /
>> 
>> to:
>> 
>> q1 ----- \
>> q2 ----- RR1
>> q3 ---- /   \
>>      q4 - \ RR2 -> RR(root)
>>      q5 - /    /
>>      q6 - \ RR3
>>      q7 - /
>> 
>> It can do it with a group() operation:
>> 
>> group(inputs:[q2,q3],output:[RR1])
>
>Isn't that a bit odd? The container was not supposed to know / care
>about RR1's existence. We achieve this with group() by implicitly
>inheriting the egress node if all grouped entities shared one.
>
>Delete IMO should act here like a "ungroup" operation, meaning that:
> 1) we're deleting SP1, not q1, q2

Does current code support removing SP1? I mean, if the scope is
detached, I don't think so.


> 2) inputs go "downstream" instead getting ejected into global level
>
>Also, in the first example from the cover letter we "set" a shaper on
>the queue, it feels a little ambiguous whether "delete queue" is
>purely clearing such per-queue shaping, or also has implications 
>for the hierarchy.
>
>Coincidentally, others may disagree, but I'd point to tests in patch 
>8 for examples of how the thing works, instead the cover letter samples.

Examples in cover letter are generally beneficial. Don't remove them :)


>
>> That will implicitly also delete SP1.