lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2017 11:51:03 +0800 From: Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com> To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com> Cc: Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>, Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Tom Herbert <tom@...bertland.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next V2 1/3] tun: abstract flow steering logic On 2017年11月02日 11:45, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Thu, Nov 02, 2017 at 11:43:48AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: >> >> On 2017年11月02日 09:11, Willem de Bruijn wrote: >>> On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 7:32 PM, Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com> wrote: >>>> tun now use flow caches based automatic queue steering method. This >>>> may not suffice all user cases. To extend it to be able to use more >>>> flow steering policy, this patch abstracts flow steering logic into >>>> tun_steering_ops, then we can declare and use different methods in >>>> the future. >>>> Signed-off-by: Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com> >>>> --- >>>> drivers/net/tun.c | 85 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------- >>>> 1 file changed, 63 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/tun.c b/drivers/net/tun.c >>>> index ea29da9..bff6259 100644 >>> The previous RFC enabled support for multiple pluggable steering >>> policies. But as all can be implemented in BPF and we only plan to >>> support an eBPF policy besides the legacy one, this patch is no longer >>> needed. We can save a few indirect function calls. >> But we should at least support two kinds of steering policy, so this is >> still needed? >> >> And I'm not quite sure we can implement all kinds of policies through BPF >> e.g RSS or we may want to offload the queue selection to underlayer switch >> or nic . >> >> Thanks > I think a simple if condition is preferable for now, too. Let's wait > until we get some 3/4 of these. > That's a solution but we may need if in at least four places. If this is ok, I will do it in next version. Thanks
Powered by blists - more mailing lists