[net-next,1/5] RDS: Re-add pf/sol access via sysctl
diff mbox series

Message ID e0397d30-7405-a7af-286c-fe76887caf0a@oracle.com
State Superseded
Delegated to: David Miller
Headers show
Series
  • [net-next,1/5] RDS: Re-add pf/sol access via sysctl
Related show

Commit Message

Gerd Rausch Aug. 13, 2019, 6:20 p.m. UTC
From: Andy Grover <andy.grover@oracle.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 15:35:51 -0800

Although RDS has an official PF_RDS value now, existing software
expects to look for rds sysctls to determine it. We need to maintain
these for now, for backwards compatibility.

Signed-off-by: Andy Grover <andy.grover@oracle.com>
Signed-off-by: Gerd Rausch <gerd.rausch@oracle.com>
---
 net/rds/sysctl.c | 21 +++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+)

Comments

Santosh Shilimkar Aug. 13, 2019, 10:07 p.m. UTC | #1
On 8/13/19 11:20 AM, Gerd Rausch wrote:
> From: Andy Grover <andy.grover@oracle.com>
> Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 15:35:51 -0800
> 
> Although RDS has an official PF_RDS value now, existing software
> expects to look for rds sysctls to determine it. We need to maintain
> these for now, for backwards compatibility.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Andy Grover <andy.grover@oracle.com>
> Signed-off-by: Gerd Rausch <gerd.rausch@oracle.com>
> ---
Acked-by: Santosh Shilimkar<santosh.shilimkar@oracle.com>
Doug Ledford Aug. 14, 2019, 3:56 p.m. UTC | #2
On Tue, 2019-08-13 at 11:20 -0700, Gerd Rausch wrote:
> From: Andy Grover <andy.grover@oracle.com>
> Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 15:35:51 -0800
> 
> Although RDS has an official PF_RDS value now, existing software
> expects to look for rds sysctls to determine it. We need to maintain
> these for now, for backwards compatibility.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Andy Grover <andy.grover@oracle.com>
> Signed-off-by: Gerd Rausch <gerd.rausch@oracle.com>
> ---
>  net/rds/sysctl.c | 21 +++++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 21 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/net/rds/sysctl.c b/net/rds/sysctl.c
> index e381bbcd9cc1..9760292a0af4 100644
> --- a/net/rds/sysctl.c
> +++ b/net/rds/sysctl.c
> @@ -49,6 +49,13 @@ unsigned int  rds_sysctl_max_unacked_bytes = (16 <<
> 20);
>  
>  unsigned int rds_sysctl_ping_enable = 1;
>  
> +/*
> + * We have official values, but must maintain the sysctl interface
> for existing
> + * software that expects to find these values here.
> + */
> +static int rds_sysctl_pf_rds = PF_RDS;
> +static int rds_sysctl_sol_rds = SOL_RDS;
> +
>  static struct ctl_table rds_sysctl_rds_table[] = {
>  	{
>  		.procname       = "reconnect_min_delay_ms",
> @@ -68,6 +75,20 @@ static struct ctl_table rds_sysctl_rds_table[] = {
>  		.extra1		= &rds_sysctl_reconnect_min_jiffies,
>  		.extra2		= &rds_sysctl_reconnect_max,
>  	},
> +	{
> +		.procname       = "pf_rds",
> +		.data		= &rds_sysctl_pf_rds,
> +		.maxlen         = sizeof(int),
> +		.mode           = 0444,
> +		.proc_handler   = &proc_dointvec,
> +	},
> +	{
> +		.procname       = "sol_rds",
> +		.data		= &rds_sysctl_sol_rds,
> +		.maxlen         = sizeof(int),
> +		.mode           = 0444,
> +		.proc_handler   = &proc_dointvec,
> +	},
>  	{
>  		.procname	= "max_unacked_packets",
>  		.data		= &rds_sysctl_max_unacked_packets,

Good Lord...RDS was taken into the kernel in Feb of 2009, so over 10
years ago.  The patch to put PF_RDS/AF_RDS/SOL_RDS was taken into
include/linux/socket.h Feb 26, 2009.  The RDS ports were allocated by
IANA on Feb 27 and May 20, 2009.  And you *still* have software that
needs this?  The only software that has ever used RDS was Oracle
software.  I would have expected you guys to update your source code to
do the right thing long before now.  In fact, I would expect you were
ready to retire all of the legacy software that needs this by now.  As
of today, does your current build of Oracle software still require this,
or have you at least fixed it up in your modern builds?
Gerd Rausch Aug. 14, 2019, 5:41 p.m. UTC | #3
Hi Doug,

On 14/08/2019 08.56, Doug Ledford wrote:
> Good Lord...RDS was taken into the kernel in Feb of 2009, so over 10
> years ago.  The patch to put PF_RDS/AF_RDS/SOL_RDS was taken into
> include/linux/socket.h Feb 26, 2009.  The RDS ports were allocated by
> IANA on Feb 27 and May 20, 2009.  And you *still* have software that
> needs this?

I'll let Santosh elaborate on this, but it looks like we (i.e. Oracle) do:

From our Gerrit, posted on Aug 08, 2019, 10:39:29 AM UTC-07:00:
--------%<--------%<--------%<--------%<--------%<--------%<--------
Santosh Shilimkar Acked-by +1
Patch Set 1: Acked-by+1
Unfortunately we need to keep these around.
--------%<--------%<--------%<--------%<--------%<--------%<--------

> As of today, does your current build of Oracle software still require this,
> or have you at least fixed it up in your modern builds?
> 

I'll let Santosh answer that question as well.

Thanks,

  Gerd
Santosh Shilimkar Aug. 14, 2019, 6:01 p.m. UTC | #4
On 8/14/19 8:56 AM, Doug Ledford wrote:
> On Tue, 2019-08-13 at 11:20 -0700, Gerd Rausch wrote:
>> From: Andy Grover <andy.grover@oracle.com>
>> Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 15:35:51 -0800
>>
>> Although RDS has an official PF_RDS value now, existing software
>> expects to look for rds sysctls to determine it. We need to maintain
>> these for now, for backwards compatibility.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Andy Grover <andy.grover@oracle.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Gerd Rausch <gerd.rausch@oracle.com>
>> ---
>>   net/rds/sysctl.c | 21 +++++++++++++++++++++
>>   1 file changed, 21 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/net/rds/sysctl.c b/net/rds/sysctl.c
>> index e381bbcd9cc1..9760292a0af4 100644
>> --- a/net/rds/sysctl.c
>> +++ b/net/rds/sysctl.c
>> @@ -49,6 +49,13 @@ unsigned int  rds_sysctl_max_unacked_bytes = (16 <<
>> 20);
>>   
>>   unsigned int rds_sysctl_ping_enable = 1;
>>   
>> +/*
>> + * We have official values, but must maintain the sysctl interface
>> for existing
>> + * software that expects to find these values here.
>> + */
>> +static int rds_sysctl_pf_rds = PF_RDS;
>> +static int rds_sysctl_sol_rds = SOL_RDS;
>> +
>>   static struct ctl_table rds_sysctl_rds_table[] = {
>>   	{
>>   		.procname       = "reconnect_min_delay_ms",
>> @@ -68,6 +75,20 @@ static struct ctl_table rds_sysctl_rds_table[] = {
>>   		.extra1		= &rds_sysctl_reconnect_min_jiffies,
>>   		.extra2		= &rds_sysctl_reconnect_max,
>>   	},
>> +	{
>> +		.procname       = "pf_rds",
>> +		.data		= &rds_sysctl_pf_rds,
>> +		.maxlen         = sizeof(int),
>> +		.mode           = 0444,
>> +		.proc_handler   = &proc_dointvec,
>> +	},
>> +	{
>> +		.procname       = "sol_rds",
>> +		.data		= &rds_sysctl_sol_rds,
>> +		.maxlen         = sizeof(int),
>> +		.mode           = 0444,
>> +		.proc_handler   = &proc_dointvec,
>> +	},
>>   	{
>>   		.procname	= "max_unacked_packets",
>>   		.data		= &rds_sysctl_max_unacked_packets,
> 
> Good Lord...RDS was taken into the kernel in Feb of 2009, so over 10
> years ago.  The patch to put PF_RDS/AF_RDS/SOL_RDS was taken into
> include/linux/socket.h Feb 26, 2009.  The RDS ports were allocated by
> IANA on Feb 27 and May 20, 2009.  And you *still* have software that
> needs this?  The only software that has ever used RDS was Oracle
> software.  I would have expected you guys to update your source code to
> do the right thing long before now.  In fact, I would expect you were
> ready to retire all of the legacy software that needs this by now.  As
> of today, does your current build of Oracle software still require this,
> or have you at least fixed it up in your modern builds?
> 
Some of the application software was released before 2009 and ended up
using these proc entries from downstream kernel. The newer lib/app
using RDS don't use these. Unfortunately lot of customer still use
Oracle 9, 10, 11 which were released before 2007 and run these apps
on modern kernels.

Regards,
Snatosh
David Miller Aug. 14, 2019, 6:21 p.m. UTC | #5
From: santosh.shilimkar@oracle.com
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2019 11:01:36 -0700

> Some of the application software was released before 2009 and ended up
> using these proc entries from downstream kernel. The newer lib/app
> using RDS don't use these. Unfortunately lot of customer still use
> Oracle 9, 10, 11 which were released before 2007 and run these apps
> on modern kernels.

So those apps are using proc entries that were never upstream...

Sorry, this is completely and utterly inappropriate.
Santosh Shilimkar Aug. 14, 2019, 6:36 p.m. UTC | #6
On 8/14/19 11:21 AM, David Miller wrote:
> From: santosh.shilimkar@oracle.com
> Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2019 11:01:36 -0700
> 
>> Some of the application software was released before 2009 and ended up
>> using these proc entries from downstream kernel. The newer lib/app
>> using RDS don't use these. Unfortunately lot of customer still use
>> Oracle 9, 10, 11 which were released before 2007 and run these apps
>> on modern kernels.
> 
> So those apps are using proc entries that were never upstream...
>
> Sorry, this is completely and utterly inappropriate.
> 
Agree. Unfortunately one of the legacy application library didn't
get upgraded even after the ports were registered with IANA.
Oracle 11 is still very active release and hence this patch.

It is fine to drop $subject patch from this series.

Regards,
Santosh
David Miller Aug. 14, 2019, 9:31 p.m. UTC | #7
From: santosh.shilimkar@oracle.com
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2019 11:36:19 -0700

> On 8/14/19 11:21 AM, David Miller wrote:
>> From: santosh.shilimkar@oracle.com
>> Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2019 11:01:36 -0700
>> 
>>> Some of the application software was released before 2009 and ended up
>>> using these proc entries from downstream kernel. The newer lib/app
>>> using RDS don't use these. Unfortunately lot of customer still use
>>> Oracle 9, 10, 11 which were released before 2007 and run these apps
>>> on modern kernels.
>> So those apps are using proc entries that were never upstream...
>>
>> Sorry, this is completely and utterly inappropriate.
>> 
> Agree. Unfortunately one of the legacy application library didn't
> get upgraded even after the ports were registered with IANA.
> Oracle 11 is still very active release and hence this patch.
> 
> It is fine to drop $subject patch from this series.

The appropriate procedure is to resubmit the series with the patch
removed.

Thank you.
Gerd Rausch Aug. 14, 2019, 9:45 p.m. UTC | #8
Hi David,

On 14/08/2019 14.31, David Miller wrote:
> From: santosh.shilimkar@oracle.com
> Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2019 11:36:19 -0700
> 
>> On 8/14/19 11:21 AM, David Miller wrote:
>>> From: santosh.shilimkar@oracle.com
>>> Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2019 11:01:36 -0700
>>>
>>>> Some of the application software was released before 2009 and ended up
>>>> using these proc entries from downstream kernel. The newer lib/app
>>>> using RDS don't use these. Unfortunately lot of customer still use
>>>> Oracle 9, 10, 11 which were released before 2007 and run these apps
>>>> on modern kernels.
>>> So those apps are using proc entries that were never upstream...
>>>
>>> Sorry, this is completely and utterly inappropriate.
>>>
>> Agree. Unfortunately one of the legacy application library didn't
>> get upgraded even after the ports were registered with IANA.
>> Oracle 11 is still very active release and hence this patch.
>>
>> It is fine to drop $subject patch from this series.
> 
> The appropriate procedure is to resubmit the series with the patch
> removed.
> 

For my understanding:
Are you saying that...

a) It is utterly inappropriate to have Oracle applications
   rely on a /proc/sys API that was kept out of Upstream-Linux
   for this long

b) It is utterly inappropriate to include such a /proc/sys API
   that Oracle applications have depended on this late

c) ... something else ...

At first I read your comment as "a)", which would then imply
that this commit shall be included now (albeit late).

If your answer is "not a)", or implies that Oracle ought to continue
to carry this change in our own repository only, please let me know,
and I will re-submit the series without this patch, to follow
appropriate procedure.

Thanks,

  Gerd
David Miller Aug. 15, 2019, 1:25 a.m. UTC | #9
From: Gerd Rausch <gerd.rausch@oracle.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2019 14:45:21 -0700

> a) It is utterly inappropriate to have Oracle applications
>    rely on a /proc/sys API that was kept out of Upstream-Linux
>    for this long

Yes.

> 
> b) It is utterly inappropriate to include such a /proc/sys API
>    that Oracle applications have depended on this late

Also yes.

Patch
diff mbox series

diff --git a/net/rds/sysctl.c b/net/rds/sysctl.c
index e381bbcd9cc1..9760292a0af4 100644
--- a/net/rds/sysctl.c
+++ b/net/rds/sysctl.c
@@ -49,6 +49,13 @@  unsigned int  rds_sysctl_max_unacked_bytes = (16 << 20);
 
 unsigned int rds_sysctl_ping_enable = 1;
 
+/*
+ * We have official values, but must maintain the sysctl interface for existing
+ * software that expects to find these values here.
+ */
+static int rds_sysctl_pf_rds = PF_RDS;
+static int rds_sysctl_sol_rds = SOL_RDS;
+
 static struct ctl_table rds_sysctl_rds_table[] = {
 	{
 		.procname       = "reconnect_min_delay_ms",
@@ -68,6 +75,20 @@  static struct ctl_table rds_sysctl_rds_table[] = {
 		.extra1		= &rds_sysctl_reconnect_min_jiffies,
 		.extra2		= &rds_sysctl_reconnect_max,
 	},
+	{
+		.procname       = "pf_rds",
+		.data		= &rds_sysctl_pf_rds,
+		.maxlen         = sizeof(int),
+		.mode           = 0444,
+		.proc_handler   = &proc_dointvec,
+	},
+	{
+		.procname       = "sol_rds",
+		.data		= &rds_sysctl_sol_rds,
+		.maxlen         = sizeof(int),
+		.mode           = 0444,
+		.proc_handler   = &proc_dointvec,
+	},
 	{
 		.procname	= "max_unacked_packets",
 		.data		= &rds_sysctl_max_unacked_packets,