Re: [PATCH net-next v4 1/2] net sched actions: dump more than TCA_ACT_MAX_PRIO actions per batch

Jiri Pirko
2017-04-20T11:35:44Z

Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 12:42:55PM CEST, jhs@mojatatu.com wrote:
>On 17-04-19 12:17 PM, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>> Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 06:07:48PM CEST, jhs@mojatatu.com wrote:
>> > On 17-04-19 11:54 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>> > > Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 05:37:15PM CEST, jhs@mojatatu.com wrote:
>> > > > On 17-04-19 09:13 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>> > > > > Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 03:03:59PM CEST, jhs@mojatatu.com wrote:
>> > > > > > On 17-04-19 08:36 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>> > > > > > > Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 01:57:29PM CEST, jhs@mojatatu.com wrote:
>> > > > > > > > From: Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@mojatatu.com>
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > include/uapi/linux/rtnetlink.h | 21 +++++++++++++++++++--
>> > > > > > > > net/sched/act_api.c | 43 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------
>> > > > > > > > 3 files changed, 53 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
>> > > >
>> > > > > > > > +#define TCAA_MAX (__TCAA_MAX - 1)
>> > > > > > > > #define TA_RTA(r) ((struct rtattr*)(((char*)(r)) + NLMSG_ALIGN(sizeof(struct tcamsg))))
>> > > > > > > > #define TA_PAYLOAD(n) NLMSG_PAYLOAD(n,sizeof(struct tcamsg))
>> > > > > > > > -#define TCA_ACT_TAB 1 /* attr type must be >=1 */
>> > > > > > > > -#define TCAA_MAX 1
>> > > > > > > > +#define TCA_ACT_TAB TCAA_ACT_TAB
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > This is mess. What does "TCAA" stand for?
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > TC Actions Attributes. What would you call it? I could have
>> > > > > > called it TCA_ROOT etc. But maybe a comment to just call it
>> > > > > > TC Actions Attributes would be enough?
>> > > > >
>> > > > > TCA_DUMP_X
>> > > > >
>> > > > > it is only for dumping. Naming it "attribute" seems weird. Same as if
>> > > > > you have: int variable_something;
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > Jiri, this is not just for dumping. We are describing high level
>> > > > attributes for tc actions.
>> > >
>> > > This is already present:
>> > > enum {
>> > > TCA_ACT_UNSPEC,
>> > > TCA_ACT_KIND,
>> > > TCA_ACT_OPTIONS,
>> > > TCA_ACT_INDEX,
>> > > TCA_ACT_STATS,
>> > > TCA_ACT_PAD,
>> > > TCA_ACT_COOKIE,
>> > > __TCA_ACT_MAX
>> > > };
>> > >
>> > > This is nested inside the dump message (TCAA_MAX, TCA_ACT_TAB)
>> > >
>> > > Looks like you are mixing these 2.
>> > >
>> >
>> > No - That space is per action. The space i am defining is
>> > above that in the the hierarchy. There used to be only
>> > one attribute there (TCA_ACT_TAB) and now we are making
>> > it more generic.
>>
>> Right. That's what I say. And that higher level is used only for
>> dumping. That's why I suggested TCA_ACT_DUMP prefix.
>>
>
>DUMP is not right. _TAB is used for SET/DEL as well.
>why dont we leave this alone so we can progress?
>You can submit changes later if it bothers you still.

Ha. So the current code is wrong, I see it now. Following is needed:

diff --git a/net/sched/act_api.c b/net/sched/act_api.c
index 82b1d48..c432b22 100644
--- a/net/sched/act_api.c
+++ b/net/sched/act_api.c
@@ -1005,7 +1005,7 @@ static int tc_ctl_action(struct sk_buff *skb, struct nlmsghdr *n,
!netlink_capable(skb, CAP_NET_ADMIN))
return -EPERM;

- ret = nlmsg_parse(n, sizeof(struct tcamsg), tca, TCA_ACT_MAX, NULL,
+ ret = nlmsg_parse(n, sizeof(struct tcamsg), tca, TCAA_MAX, NULL,
extack);
if (ret < 0)
return ret;

You confused me squashing the change to this patch.

Ok, so the name could be:
TCA_ACTS_*
?
I believe it is crucial to figure this out right now. TC UAPI is in deep
mess already, no need to push it even more.

>
>>
>> >
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> > > > It is a _lot_ of code to change! Note:
>> > > > This is all the UAPI visible code (the same coding style for 20 years).
>> > > > I am worried about this part.
>> > >
>> > > We'll see. Lets do it in a sensitive way, in steps. But for new things,
>> > > I think it is good not to stick with old and outlived habits.
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> > I know you have the muscle to get it done - so fine, i will start
>> > with this one change.
>> >
>> > >
>> > > Netlink is TLV, should be used as TLV. I don't see how you can run out
>> > > any space. You tend to use Netlink in some weird hybrid mode, with only
>> > > argument being space. I think that couple of bytes wasted is not
>> > > a problem at all...
>> > >
>> >
>> > You are not making sense to me still.
>> > What you describe as "a couple of bytes" adds up when you have
>> > a large number of objects. I am trying to cut down on data back
>> > and forth from user/kernel and a bitmap is a well understood entity.
>>
>> The attributes in question are per-message, not per-object
>>
>>
>> >
>> > Even if i did use a TLV - when i am representing flags which require one
>> > bit each - it makes sense to use a bitmask encapsulated in a TLV. Not
>> > to waste a TLV per bit.
>>
>> That is the only correct way. For example, in future the kernel may
>> report in extended ack that it does not support some specific attribute
>> user passed. If you pack it all in one attr, that would not be possible.
>> Also, what prevents user from passing random data on bit flag positions
>> that you are not using? Current kernel would ignore it. Next kernel will
>> do something different according to the flag bit. That is UAPI break.
>> Essentialy the same thing what DaveM said about the struct. You have to
>> define this completely, at the beginning, not possible to use the unused
>> bits for other things in the future.
>>
>
>
>They are not the same issue Jiri. We have used bitmasks fine on netlink

Howcome they are not the same? I'm pretty certain they are.

>message for a millenia. Nobody sets garbage on a bitmask they are not
>supposed to touch. The struct padding thing is a shame the way it
>turned out - now netlink can no longer have a claim to be a (good)
>wire protocol.
>Other thing: I know you feel strongly about this but I dont agree that
>everything has to be a TLV and in no way, as a matter of principle, you are
>going to convince me (even when the cows come home) that I have to
>use 64 bits to carry a single bit just so I can use TLVs.

Then I guess we have to agree to disagree. I believe that your approach
is wrong and will break users in future when you add even a single flag.
Argument that "we are doing this for ages-therefore it is correct" has
simply 0 value.