netdev - Re: [PATCH v6 net-next 02/15] netlink: spec: add shaper YAML spec

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: <20240905173857.588f2578@kernel.org>
Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2024 17:38:57 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
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>,
 anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com, przemyslaw.kitszel@...el.com,
 intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org, edumazet@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 net-next 02/15] netlink: spec: add shaper YAML spec

On Thu, 5 Sep 2024 18:17:42 +0200 Paolo Abeni wrote:
> > I don't see example uses in the cover letter or the test so there's
> > a good chance I'm missing something, but... why node_parent?
> > The only thing you need to know about the parent is its handle,
> > so just "parent", right?
> > 
> > Also why node_handle? Just "handle", and other attrs of the node can
> > live in the main scope.  
> 
> I added the 'node_' prefix in the list to stress that such attributes 
> belong to the node.
> 
> In the yaml/command line will be only 'handle', 'parent'.

And the scope inside parent is 'handle', not subset of 'net-shaper'?
Just to be 100% sure :)

> > Unless you have a strong reason to do this to simplify the code -
> > "from netlink perspective" it looks like unnecessary nesting.
> > The operation arguments describe the node, there's no need to nest
> > things in another layer.  
> 
> Ok, the code complexity should not change much. Side question: currently 
> the node() operation allows specifying all the b/w related attributes 
> for the 'node' shaper, should I keep them? (and move them in the main 
> yaml scope)

Up to you, I was surprised they were there (I expected @group to
be solely about creation of the RR node, and rate limit would have
to be set via a separate @set). But I don't expect providing rate 
limit params in @group to be problematic and user space may find it
convenient. So I'm neutral.

And yes, they should sit directly at the message level, not in any
nest.