netdev - Re: Hardware capabilities and bonding offload

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:	Wed, 18 Nov 2015 15:05:12 +0100
From:	Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To:	John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>
Cc:	Simon Horman <simon.horman@...ronome.com>,
	Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>,
	Premkumar Jonnala <pjonnala@...adcom.com>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Hardware capabilities and bonding offload

> To be honest though this is more of an argument in theory versus
> some existing management agent I know of today. If you need to do
> bonding type X in your network and the particular switch doesn't support
> it I'm not even sure what the mgmt layer is going to do. Maybe just
> put the switch offline for that network segment.
> 
> If you leave the sw bit out in the first iteration I'm OK with that
> we can easily add it when we have software that needs it.

Taking a step back...

Have we defined a consistent way for signalling:

1) Failed to offload to the hardware, because the hardware cannot do
   what you requested.
2) Do this in software, rather than trying and failing to offload to
   hardware.

At least in DSA, we return EOPNOTSUP for 1).

   Andrew

--
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