netdev - Re: net-shapers plan

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: <3e5c829bbcbfe88f7febea52646a6e0bd0dd4068.camel@nvidia.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2025 15:55:27 +0000
From: Cosmin Ratiu <cratiu@...dia.com>
To: "jiri@...nulli.us" <jiri@...nulli.us>
CC: "andrew+netdev@...n.ch" <andrew+netdev@...n.ch>, "davem@...emloft.net"
	<davem@...emloft.net>, Tariq Toukan <tariqt@...dia.com>, Gal Pressman
	<gal@...dia.com>, "pabeni@...hat.com" <pabeni@...hat.com>, Leon Romanovsky
	<leonro@...dia.com>, "horms@...nel.org" <horms@...nel.org>,
	"edumazet@...gle.com" <edumazet@...gle.com>, "netdev@...r.kernel.org"
	<netdev@...r.kernel.org>, Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...dia.com>, Carolina Jubran
	<cjubran@...dia.com>, "kuba@...nel.org" <kuba@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: net-shapers plan

On Tue, 2025-03-11 at 14:38 +0100, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> Thu, Mar 06, 2025 at 03:03:54PM +0100, cratiu@...dia.com wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
> > 
> > 3. Add a new DEVLINK binding type for the hierarchy, to be able to
> > represent netdev groups. That part of the hierarchy would be stored
> > in
> > the devlink object instead of the netdev. This allows separation
> > between the VM and the hypervisor parts of the hierarchy.
> 
> [...]
> 
> > 
> > 3. Extend NODE scope to group multiple netdevs and new DEVLINK
> > binding
> > Today, all net-shapers objects are owned by a netdevice. Who should
> > own
> > a net shaper that represents a group of netdevices? It needs to be
> > a
> > stable object that isn't affected by group membership changes and
> > therefore cannot be any netdev from the group. The only sensible
> > option
> > would be to pick an object corresponding to the eswitch to own such
> > groups, which neatly corresponds to the devlink object today.
> 
> Could you be litte bit more descriptive about this? I don't
> understand
> why you need group of netdevices. I understand that for devlink
> binding,
> you have usecase for group (devlink rate node). But do you have a
> usecase for group of netdevices? Perhaps I'm missing something.
> 
> [...]

The goal is for net-shapers to be able to manipulate the hw scheduling
object corresponding to a devlink rate node which groups multiple
devlink leaves (one per devlink port) today. At this level, the
netdevice is just a proxy for the devlink port. So yes, I meant
grouping devlink ports or whatever entity feels appropriate at that
level (maybe representor devices as handles for the corresponding
ports?).

Without this ability, you cannot fully represent the devlink hierarchy
with net-shapers.

Cosmin.