netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH v0 1/2] net: bridge: propagate FDB table into hardware

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 16 Feb 2012 19:18:57 +0000
From:	Shradha Shah <sshah@...arflare.com>
To:	Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@...arflare.com>
CC:	<jhs@...atatu.com>, John Fastabend <john.r.fastabend@...el.com>,
	Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>,
	<roprabhu@...co.com>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <mst@...hat.com>,
	<chrisw@...hat.com>, <davem@...emloft.net>,
	<gregory.v.rose@...el.com>, <kvm@...r.kernel.org>, <sri@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v0 1/2] net: bridge: propagate FDB table into hardware

Hello,

Please find my comments inline.

Regards,
Shradha Shah

On 02/16/2012 03:58 AM, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> [I'm just catching up with this after getting my own driver changes into
> shape.]
> 
> On Fri, 2012-02-10 at 10:18 -0500, jamal wrote:
>> Hi John,
>>
>> I went backwards to summarize at the top after going through your email.
>>
>> TL;DR version 0.1: 
>> you provide a good use case where it makes sense to do things in the
>> kernel. IMO, you could make the same arguement if your embedded switch
>> could do ACLs, IPv4 forwarding etc. And the kernel bloats.
>> I am always bigoted to move all policy control to user space instead of
>> bloating in the kernel.
> [...]
>>> Now here is the potential issue,
>>>
>>> (G) The frame transmitted from ethx.y with the destination address of
>>>     veth0 but the embedded switch is not a learning switch. If the FDB
>>>     update is done in user space its possible (likely?) that the FDB
>>>     entry for veth0 has not been added to the embedded switch yet. 
>>
>> Ok, got it - so the catch here is the switch is not capable of learning.
>> I think this depends on where learning is done. Your intent is to
>> use the S/W bridge as something that does the learning for you i.e in
>> the kernel. This makes the s/w bridge part of MUST-have-for-this-to-run.
>> And that maybe the case for your use case.
> [...]
> 
> Well, in addition, there are SR-IOV network adapters that don't have any
> bridge.  For these, the software bridge is necessary to handle
> multicast, broadcast and forwarding between local ports, not only to do
> learning.
> 
> Solarflare's implementation of accelerated guest networking (which
> Shradha and I are gradually sending upstream) builds on libvirt's
> existing support for software bridges and assigns VFs to guests as a
> means to offload some of the forwarding.

I am also trying to work with bridging using macvtap. Libvirt supports
macvtap in four modes; vepa, bridge, private and passthrough mode.
Macvtap used in the bridge mode will work similar to a software bridge and 
will improve performance.

> 
> If and when we implement a hardware bridge, we would probably still want
> to keep the software bridge as a fallback.  If a guest is dependent on a
> VF that's connected to a hardware bridge, it becomes impossible or at
> least very disruptive to migrate it to another host that doesn't have a
> compatible VF available.
> 
> Ben.
> 


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html