netdev - Re: [patch net-next v2 8/9] switchdev: introduce Netlink API

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:	Sat, 20 Sep 2014 10:25:29 +0200
From:	Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
To:	Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
Cc:	Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>,
	John Fastabend <john.r.fastabend@...el.com>,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net, 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@...adent.org.uk, stephen@...workplumber.org,
	jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com, vyasevic@...hat.com,
	xiyou.wangcong@...il.com, edumazet@...gle.com,
	sfeldma@...ulusnetworks.com, roopa@...ulusnetworks.com,
	linville@...driver.com, dev@...nvswitch.org, jasowang@...hat.com,
	ebiederm@...ssion.com, nicolas.dichtel@...nd.com,
	ryazanov.s.a@...il.com, buytenh@...tstofly.org,
	aviadr@...lanox.com, nbd@...nwrt.org, alexei.starovoitov@...il.com,
	Neil.Jerram@...aswitch.com, ronye@...lanox.com,
	simon.horman@...ronome.com, alexander.h.duyck@...el.com
Subject: Re: [patch net-next v2 8/9] switchdev: introduce Netlink API

Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 07:39:51AM CEST, f.fainelli@...il.com wrote:
>On 09/19/14 15:18, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote:
>>On 09/19/14 18:12, John Fastabend wrote:
>>>On 09/19/2014 10:57 AM, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote:
>>>>On 09/19/14 11:49, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>>>>>Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 05:25:48PM CEST, jhs@...atatu.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>Is this just a temporary test tool? Otherwise i dont see reason
>>>>>>for its existence (or the API that it feeds on).
>>>>>
>>>>>Please read the conversation I had with Pravin and Jesse in v1 thread.
>>>>>Long story short they like to have the api separated from ovs datapath
>>>>>so ovs daemon can use it to directly communicate with driver. Also John
>>>>>Fastabend requested a way to work with driver flows without using
>>>>>ovs ->
>>>>>that was the original reason I created switchdev genl api.
>>>>>
>>>>>Regarding the "sw" tool, yes it is for testing purposes now. ovs daemon
>>>>>will use directly switchdev genl api.
>>>>>
>>>>>I hope I cleared this out.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>It is - thanks Jiri.
>>>>
>>>>cheers,
>>>>jamal
>>>
>>>Hi Jiri,
>>>
>>>I was considering a slightly different approach where the
>>>device would report via netlink the fields/actions it
>>>supported rather than creating pre-defined enums for every
>>>possible key.
>>>
>>>I already need to have an API to report fields/matches
>>>that are being supported why not have the device report
>>>the headers as header fields (len, offset) and the
>>>associated parse graph the hardware uses? Vendors should
>>>have this already to describe/design their real hardware.
>>>
>>>As always its better to have code and when I get some
>>>time I'll try to write it up. Maybe its just a separate
>>>classifier although I don't actually want two hardware
>>>flow APIs.
>>>
>>>I see you dropped the RFC tag are you proposing we include
>>>this now?
>>>
>>
>>
>>Actually I just realized i missed something very basic that
>>Jiri said. I think i understand the tool being there for testing
>>but i am assumed the same about the genlink api.
>>Jiri, are you saying that genlink api is there to
>>stay?
>
>So, I really have mixed feelings about this netlink API, in particular
>because it is not clear to me where is the line between what should be a
>network device ndo operation, what should be an ethtool command, what should
>be a netlink message, and the rest.

Well as I said, this api should serve for flow manipulation only,
therefore swdev flow related ndos are used.


>
>I can certainly acknowledge the fact that manipulating flows is not ideal
>with the current set of tools, but really once we are there with netlink, how
>far are we from not having any network devices at all, and how does that
>differ from OpenWrt's swconfig in the end [1]?


I'm all ears on proposals how to make flow manipulation better.


>
>[1]: https://lwn.net/Articles/571390/
>--
>Florian
--
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