Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 1/2] net/smc: Introduce BPF injection capability for SMC

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 





On 3/24/23 4:46 AM, Martin KaFai Lau wrote:
On 3/9/23 3:49 AM, D. Wythe wrote:
--- /dev/null
+++ b/net/smc/bpf_smc_struct_ops.c
@@ -0,0 +1,146 @@
+// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
+
+#include <linux/kernel.h>
+#include <linux/bpf_verifier.h>
+#include <linux/btf_ids.h>
+#include <linux/bpf.h>
+#include <linux/btf.h>
+#include <net/sock.h>
+#include <net/smc.h>
+
+extern struct bpf_struct_ops smc_sock_negotiator_ops;
+
+DEFINE_RWLOCK(smc_sock_negotiator_ops_rwlock);
+struct smc_sock_negotiator_ops *negotiator;

Is it sure one global negotiator (policy) will work for all smc_sock? or each sk should have its own negotiator and the negotiator is selected by setsockopt.

This is really a good question,  we can really consider adding an independent negotiator for each sock.

But just like the TCP congestion control , the global negotiator can be used for sock without

special requirements.

It is different from TCP congestion control (CC). TCP CC has a global default but each sk can select what tcp-cc to use and there can be multiple tcp-cc registered under different names.

It sounds like smc using tcp_sock should be able to have different negotiator also (eg. based on dst IP or some other tcp connection characteristic). The tcp-cc registration, per-sock selection and the rcu_read_lock+refcnt are well understood and there are other bpf infrastructure to support the per sock tcp-cc selection (like bpf_setsockopt).

For the network stack, there is little reason other af_* should not follow at the beginning considering the infrastructure has already been built. The one single global negotiator and reader/writer lock in this patch reads like an effort wanted to give it a try and see if it will be useful before implementing the whole thing. It is better to keep it off the tree for now until it is more ready.

Hi Martin,

Thank you very much for your comments. I have indeed removed global negotiator from my latest implementation.

The latest design is that users can register a negotiator implementation indexed by name, smc_sock can use bpf_setsockopt to specify whether a specific negotiation implementation is required via name. If there are no settings, there will be no negotiators.

What do you think?

In addition, I am very sorry that I have not issued my implementation for such a long time, and I have encountered some problems with the implementation because the SMC needs to be built as kernel module, I have struggled with the bpf_setsockopt implementation, and there are some new self-testes that need to be written.

However, I believe that I can send a new version as soon as possible.


Best wishes
D. Wythe








[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Development]     [Kernel Newbies]     [IDE]     [Security]     [Git]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite Info]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux ATA RAID]     [Samba]     [Linux Media]     [Device Mapper]

  Powered by Linux