On 2023-10-20 16:33, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
On Fri, 20 Oct 2023 15:24:41 -0600 Ahmed Zaki wrote:
IMO fat warning in the documentation and ethtool man saying that this
makes the algo (any / all) vulnerable to attack would be enough.
Willem?
Please advise on the next step. Should I send a new version with the Doc
warning, or will you use v5?
Not just the doc changes:
| We can use one of the reserved fields of struct ethtool_rxfh to carry
| this extension. I think I asked for this at some point, but there's
| only so much repeated feedback one can send in a day :(
https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/
I replied to that here:
https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/
I am kind of confused now so please bear with me. ethtool either sends
"ethtool_rxfh" or "ethtool_rxnfc". AFAIK "ethtool_rxfh" is the interface
for "ethtool -X" which is used to set the RSS algorithm. But we kind of
agreed to go with "ethtool -U|-N" for symmetric-xor, and that uses
"ethtool_rxnfc" (as implemented in this series).
Do you mean use "ethtool_rxfh" instead of "ethtool_rxnfc"? how would
that work on the ethtool user interface?
Finally, a note on Alex's comment:
>It doesn't make sense to place it in the input flags and will just
> cause quick congestion as things get added there. This is an algorithm
> change so it makes more sense to place it there.
the "ethtool_rxnfc->data" is 64 bits and we are only using 8 bits so far.
Thank you.
_______________________________________________
Intel-wired-lan mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-wired-lan
