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:	Tue, 25 Mar 2014 21:19:45 +0000
From:	Thomas Graf <tgraf@...g.ch>
To:	Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>
Cc:	Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>, Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>,
	Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
	netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, andy@...yhouse.net,
	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 03/25/14 at 04:56pm, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote:
> On 03/25/14 15:35, Neil Horman wrote:
> >1) ip link show:
> >em1
> >sw1
> >
> >2) ip link show sw1
> >sw1
> >
> >3) ip link show -p sw1
> >sw1p0
> >sw1p1
> >sw1p2...
> >
> >
> >The idea is to augment user space to allow the visibiliy of ports through the
> >switch device, not directly, but using the same existing mechanisms.  We can
> >reuse all the existing infrastruture, but with this model, control must pass
> >through the switch device driver, allowing it to taylor available features by
> >passing the netlink request on to the appropriate netdevice, or sending back an
> >error itself.
> >
> 
> I think i am with you mostly - just not on the visibility of a "master"
> device.
> Expose the ports. Users create bridges bonds and if the hardware is
> capable it does the hard work to ensure consistency. No change in tools.

Exactly. This is what I meant as well. No change in tools.

It's not just about changing ip link. We have tons of existing
applications out there using Netlink and they will expect all ports
visible if they issue RTM_GETLINK with NLM_F_DUMP.

What speaks against exposing it by default? To me, the model should
not differ from a multi port NIC which we also expose all ports with
any indirection.
--
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