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: <cb43ff1f-7f79-4f81-8d27-6efaa18945b5@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2024 17:23:50 +0200
From: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
To: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc: 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>, Donald Hunter <donald.hunter@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 04/12] net-shapers: implement NL set and delete
 operations

On 8/2/24 18:15, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> 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?

The scope is 'detached'

>>> 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.

The current code explicitly prevents the above. We can change such 
behavior, if there is agreement.

My understanding is that Donald is against such option.

>> 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 :)

No problem to keep both examples and self-tests.

Thanks,

Paolo