netdev - Re: [patch net-next RFC 0/4] introduce infrastructure for support of switch chip datapath

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:	Mon, 24 Mar 2014 19:07:35 -0400
From:	Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>
To:	Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
CC:	Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
	netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>, andy@...yhouse.net,
	tgraf@...g.ch, dborkman@...hat.com, ogerlitz@...lanox.com,
	jesse@...ira.com, pshelar@...ira.com, azhou@...ira.com,
	Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk>,
	Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>,
	jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com, vyasevic <vyasevic@...hat.com>,
	Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
	John Fastabend <john.r.fastabend@...el.com>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
	Scott Feldman <sfeldma@...ulusnetworks.com>,
	Lennert Buytenhek <buytenh@...tstofly.org>
Subject: Re: [patch net-next RFC 0/4] introduce infrastructure for support
 of switch chip datapath

On 03/22/14 05:48, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 01:04:20PM CET, jhs@...atatu.com wrote:

> Hmm. This got me thinking about netdev and switches well and perhaps the
> switchdev api could be mostly implemented by couple of more ndos and
> feature flags. That way we could stick to your immortal netdev :)
>
>

Perhaps ;->

>>
>> In my view: that (immortal) device for L2/bridging is the bridge or
>> maybe a more barebone version of the bridge (since it has gained a
>> little more weight in recent times).
>
> Well, I do not think that bridge is ideal abstraction for modern switch
> chips. Bridge is very limited.
>

True - but i was more thinking of being inclusive of the smaller
devices. They are mostly L2 only and in very limited scope. And thats
probably 95% of the population. The things you are talking about
are very high end and they can do more. Florian's taxanomy was useful.

> But I don't necessary think it is needed to "mask" as a bride or mimic a
> bridge in any way. DSA does not do that either.
>

I am open to the idea of exposing ports instead of a bridge.
Such ports could be aggregate together to form a bridge when the
hardware is capable.

> switchdev tries to provide an API. Who takes it and use it is up to us.
> OVS, bridge or whatever.
>

As long as you maintain the current user tools I am happy.
Can i run all my iproute2 tools?


>
> Sure, send us a link please.
>

I will post it somewhere. The starting point was L2; if we decide to
go a different direction it may require a different approach.


cheers,
jamal

--
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