> From: Michael S. Tsirkin <m...@redhat.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2023 12:06 PM
>
> On Tue, Feb 21, 2023 at 04:20:59AM +0000, Parav Pandit wrote:
> >
> > > From: Heng Qi <hen...@linux.alibaba.com>
> > > Sent: Saturday, February 18, 2023 9:37 AM
> >
> > > If the tunnel is used to encapsulate the packets, the hash
> > > calculated using the
> > s/hash calculated/hash is calculated
> >
> > > outer header of the receive packets is always fixed for the same
> > > flow packets, i.e. they will be steered to the same receive queue.
> > >
> > A little descriptive commit message like below reads better to me.
> > Currently, when a received packet is an encapsulated packet meaning there
> is an outer and an inner header, virtio device is unable to calculate the
> hash for
> the inner header.
> > Due to this limitation, multiple different flows identified by the inner
> > header
> for the same outer header result in selecting the same receive queue.
> > This effectively disables the RSS, resulting in poor receive performance.
> >
> > Hence, to overcome this limitation, a new feature is introduced using a
> feature bit VIRTIO_NET_F_HASH_TUNNEL.
> > This feature enables the device to advertise the capability to calculate the
> hash for the inner packet header.
> > Thereby regaining better RSS performance in presence of outer packet
> header.
>
> I think this is a good description however Parav I think it is important to
> make
> contributors write their own commit messages so they know what is the reason
> for the proposed change.
Sure. Contributor can rewrite it.
> What's good for the goose is good for the gander -
> contributors should explain why their change to spec is benefitial but
> reviewers
> should also explain why their changes to the patch are benefitial, and "reads
> better to me" does not cut it - it does not allow the contributor to improve
> with
> time. It's more than about a single contribution, see?
>
I provided an example template on how to write problem_description -> solution
commit log.
At the beginning, I said "little descriptive" to explain why it reads better.
But it seems, even more verbosity is needed even for the reviewer to suggest.
I didn't see this often happening by other reviewers, but I make a note of it
now, at least I can improve from this feedback.
I imagined that the contributor would see the pattern as problem->solution in
the example commit log and follow in the future patches.
Giving example of current patch was best to describe how to write it.
> In this case I would say the issue is that motivation for the change is never
> explained.
> > When a specific receive queue is shared to receive packets of multiple
> tunnels, there is no quality of service for packets of multiple tunnels.
>
> "shared to receive" is not grammatical either :)
>
"Shared by multiple tunnels" will make it grammatical?
> If you are talking about a security risk you need to explain
> 1- what is the threat, what configurations are affected.
> 2- what is the attack type: DOS, information leak, etc.
> 3- how to mitigate it
>
> This text touches a bit on 1 and 2 but not in an ordererly way.
>
>
it is best effort based.
#3 is outside the scope of this patch set.
> > +
> > > +This can pose several security risks:
> > > +\begin{itemize}
> > > +\item Encapsulated packets in the normal tunnels cannot be
> > > +enqueued due to
> > > queue
> > > + overflow, resulting in a large amount of packet loss.
> > > +\item The delay and retransmission of packets in the normal
> > > +tunnels are
> > > extremely increased.
> > This is something very protocol specific and doesn't belong here.
>
> I don't see how it's specific - many protocols have retransmission and are
> affected by delays. "extremely increased" sounds unrammatical to me though.
>
>
I am not sure where you want to lead this discussion.
I am trying to help the spec and feature definition to be compact enough to
progress.
It is specific to a protocol(s) and somehow arbitrarily concluded with a large
number of packet losses.
Maybe only one ICMP packet got dropped and retransmit was just one packet.
Maybe it was TCP with selective retransmit enabled/disabled.
As far as receive side is concerned, it should say that there is no QoS among
different tunnels.
The user will figure out how to mitigate when such QoS is not available. Either
to run in best-effort mode or mitigate differently.
> > > +\item The user can observe the traffic information and enqueue
> > > +information
> > > of other normal
> > > + tunnels, and conduct targeted DoS attacks.
> > Once hash_report_tunnel_types is removed, this second attack is no longer
> applicable.
> > Hence, please remove this too.
>
>
> ?
> I don't get how removing a field helps DoS.
>
I meant for the "observe and enqueue" part of the tunnel as not applicable.
> \begin{lstlisting} struct virtio_net_rss_config {
> > > le32 hash_types;
> > > + le32 hash_tunnel_types;
> > This field is not needed as device config space advertisement for the
> > support
> is enough.
> >
> > If the intent is to enable hashing for the specific tunnel(s), an individual
> command is better.
>
> new command? I am not sure why we want that. why not handle tunnels like
> we do other protocols?
I didn't follow.
We probably discussed in another thread that to set M bits, it is wise to avoid
setting N other bits just to keep the command happy, where N >>> M and these N
have a very strong relation in hw resource setup and packet steering.
Any examples of 'other protocols'?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: virtio-dev-unsubscr...@lists.oasis-open.org
For additional commands, e-mail: virtio-dev-h...@lists.oasis-open.org
