netdev - Re: [PATCH v4 net-next 00/12] net: introduce TX H/W shaping 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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <d9cfa04f-24dd-4064-80bf-cada8bdcf9cb@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2024 09:51:24 +0200
From: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>,
 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 v4 net-next 00/12] net: introduce TX H/W shaping API

On 8/23/24 02:43, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Aug 2024 17:12:21 +0200 Paolo Abeni wrote:
>> * Delegation
>>
>> A containers wants to limit the aggregate B/W bandwidth of 2 of the 3
>> queues it owns - the starting configuration is the one from the
>> previous point:
>>
>> SPEC=Documentation/netlink/specs/net_shaper.yaml
>> ./tools/net/ynl/cli.py --spec $SPEC \
>> 	--do group --json '{"ifindex":'$IFINDEX',
>> 			"leaves": [
>> 			  {"handle": {"scope": "queue", "id":'$QID1' },
>> 			   "weight": '$W1'},
>> 			  {"handle": {"scope": "queue", "id":'$QID2' },
>> 			   "weight": '$W2'}],
>> 			"root": { "handle": {"scope": "node"},
>> 				  "parent": {"scope": "node", "id": 0},
> 
> In the delegation use case I was hoping "parent" would be automatic.

Currently the parent is automatic/implicit when creating a node directly 
nested to the the netdev shaper.

I now see we can use as default parent the current leaves' parent, when 
that is the same for all the to-be-grouped leaves.

Actually, if we restrict the group operation to operate only on set of 
leaves respecting the above, I *guess* we will not lose generality and 
we could simplify a bit the spec. WDYT?

Thanks,

Paolo