Re: [PATCH iwl-next v4 0/5] iavf: Add devlink and devlink rate support'

[Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>]

Hi,

please allow me to revive this old thread...

On Thu, 2023-08-24 at 09:04 +0200, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> > Wed, Aug 23, 2023 at 09:13:34PM CEST, xuejun.zhang@intel.com wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > On 8/22/2023 8:34 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> > > > > > Tue, Aug 22, 2023 at 05:12:55PM CEST,kuba@kernel.org  wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Tue, 22 Aug 2023 08:12:28 +0200 Jiri Pirko wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > NACK! Port function is there to configure the VF/SF from the eswitch
> > > > > > > > > > side. Yet you use it for the configureation of the actual VF, which is
> > > > > > > > > > clear misuse. Please don't
> > > > > > > > Stating where they are supposed to configure the rate would be helpful.
> > > > > > TC?
> > > > 
> > > > Our implementation is an extension to this commit 42c2eb6b1f43 ice: Implement
> > > > devlink-rate API).
> > > > 
> > > > We are setting the Tx max & share rates of individual queues in a VF using
> > > > the devlink rate API.
> > > > 
> > > > Here we are using DEVLINK_PORT_FLAVOUR_VIRTUAL as the attribute for the port
> > > > to distinguish it from being eswitch.
> > 
> > I understand, that is a wrong object. So again, you should use
> > "function" subobject of devlink port to configure "the other side of the
> > wire", that means the function related to a eswitch port. Here, you are
> > doing it for the VF directly, which is wrong. If you need some rate
> > limiting to be configured on an actual VF, use what you use for any
> > other nic. Offload TC.

I have a doubt WRT the above. Don't we need something more/different
here? I mean: a possible intent is limiting the amount of resources (BW
in the VF -> esw direction) that the application owing the VF could
use.

If that is enforced via TC on the VF side (say, a different namespace
or VM), the VF user could circumvent such limit - changing the tc
configuration - either by mistake or malicious action. 

Looking at the thing from a different perspective, the TX B/W on the VF
side is the RX B/W on the eswitch side, so the same effect could be
obtained with a (new/different) API formally touching only eswitch side
object. WDYT?

Thanks,

Paolo