netdev - Re: [PATCH] bonding: Offloading bonds to 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:	Sun, 15 Nov 2015 10:01:09 +0100
From:	Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
To:	John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>
Cc:	Premkumar Jonnala <pjonnala@...adcom.com>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, andrew@...n.ch,
	f.fainelli@...il.com, idosch@...lanox.com,
	nikolay@...ulusnetworks.com, sfeldma@...il.com,
	gospo@...ulusnetworks.com, davem@...emloft.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH] bonding: Offloading bonds to hardware

Sun, Nov 15, 2015 at 06:51:28AM CET, john.fastabend@...il.com wrote:
>On 15-11-14 01:39 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>> Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 05:02:18PM CET, pjonnala@...adcom.com wrote:
>>> Packet forwarding to/from bond interfaces is done in software.
>>>
>>> This patch enables certain platforms to bridge traffic to/from
>>> bond interfaces in hardware.  Notifications are sent out when 
>>> the "active" slave set for a bond interface is updated in 
>>> software.  Platforms use the notifications to program the 
>>> hardware accordingly.  The changes have been verified to work 
>>> with configured and 802.3ad bond interfaces.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Premkumar Jonnala <pjonnala@...adcom.com>
>> 
>> This patch is wrong, in many different acpects. Leaving the submission
>> style, and no in-tree consumer aside, adding ndos for this thing is
>> unacceptable. It should be handled as a part of switchdev attrs.
>
>Why is it unacceptable? I think its at least worth debating. If I
>have a nic that can do bonding but none of the other switchdev
>things then implementing another ndo is certainly more straight
>forward. As it is heading many of the 10+Gbps nics may need to
>implement just enough of the switchdev infrastructure to get things
>like bonding up and working. Not necessarily a bad thing if we make
>the switchdev infrastructure light but does sort of make the name
>confusing if my nic is not doing any switching ;)

Can you please describe what exaclty such a NIC functionality would look
like? If there's not switching/forwarding, then the packets would go
trought slow-path (kernel bonding/team driver). So why would we need to
tell anything to driver/hw?

Thanks.

--
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