netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v3 2/7] bnxt_en: add support for tcp-data-split ethtool command

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: <20241031165624.5a7f8618@kernel.org>
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2024 16:56:24 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Taehee Yoo <ap420073@...il.com>
Cc: davem@...emloft.net, pabeni@...hat.com, edumazet@...gle.com,
 almasrymina@...gle.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
 donald.hunter@...il.com, corbet@....net, michael.chan@...adcom.com,
 kory.maincent@...tlin.com, andrew@...n.ch, maxime.chevallier@...tlin.com,
 danieller@...dia.com, hengqi@...ux.alibaba.com, ecree.xilinx@...il.com,
 przemyslaw.kitszel@...el.com, hkallweit1@...il.com, ahmed.zaki@...el.com,
 paul.greenwalt@...el.com, rrameshbabu@...dia.com, idosch@...dia.com,
 asml.silence@...il.com, kaiyuanz@...gle.com, willemb@...gle.com,
 aleksander.lobakin@...el.com, dw@...idwei.uk, sridhar.samudrala@...el.com,
 bcreeley@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v3 2/7] bnxt_en: add support for tcp-data-split
 ethtool command

On Fri, 1 Nov 2024 02:34:59 +0900 Taehee Yoo wrote:
> While I'm writing a patch I face an ambiguous problem here.
> ethnl_set_ring() first calls .get_ringparam() to get current config.
> Then it calls .set_ringparam() after it sets the current config + new
> config to param structures.
> The bnxt_set_ringparam() may receive ETHTOOL_TCP_DATA_SPLIT_ENABLED
> because two cases.
> 1. from user
> 2. from bnxt_get_ringparam() because of UNKNWON.
> The problem is that the bnxt_set_ringparam() can't distinguish them.
> The problem scenario is here.
> 1. tcp-data-split is UNKNOWN mode.
> 2. HDS is automatically enabled because one of LRO or GRO is enabled.
> 3. user changes ring parameter with following command
> `ethtool -G eth0 rx 1024`
> 4. ethnl_set_rings() calls .get_ringparam() to get current config.
> 5. bnxt_get_ringparam() returns ENABLE of HDS because of UNKNWON mode.
> 6. ethnl_set_rings() calls .set_ringparam() after setting param with
> configs comes from .get_ringparam().
> 7. bnxt_set_ringparam() is passed ETHTOOL_TCP_DATA_SPLIT_ENABLED but
> the user didn't set it explicitly.
> 8. bnxt_set_ringparam() eventually force enables tcp-data-split.
> 
> I couldn't find a way to distinguish them so far.
> I'm not sure if this is acceptable or not.
> Maybe we need to modify a scenario?

I thought we discussed this, but I may be misremembering.
You may need to record in the core whether the setting came 
from the user or not (similarly to IFF_RXFH_CONFIGURED).
User setting UNKNWON would mean "reset".
Maybe I'm misunderstanding..