netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v3] net: ipv4: add support for ECMP hash policy choice

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, 15 Mar 2017 10:17:24 +0100
From:   Nicolas Dichtel <nicolas.dichtel@...nd.com>
To:     David Ahern <dsa@...ulusnetworks.com>,
        Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>,
        Roopa Prabhu <roopa@...ulusnetworks.com>
Cc:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Nikolay Aleksandrov <nikolay@...ulusnetworks.com>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, jkbs@...hat.com,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Peter Christensen <pch@...bogen.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v3] net: ipv4: add support for ECMP hash policy
 choice

Le 15/03/2017 à 00:45, David Ahern a écrit :
> On 3/14/17 5:27 PM, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
>> On Tue, 14 Mar 2017 15:38:40 -0700
>> Roopa Prabhu <roopa@...ulusnetworks.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>> That's what my initial version did, but this was discussed during NetConf in Seville
>>>>>>>> and it was decided that it's best to make a global sysctl, thus the change.  
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Correct, we discussed this, and we all agreed to only have a sysctl for now.  
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why? If you are going to have private discussions please post the rationale
>>>>>> in public.  
>>>>>
>>>>> Stephen, is there any reason to have a per ecmp route multipath algo
>>>>> selection ?.
>>>>> All platforms have a global multipath selection algo. I also don't see
>>>>> routing daemons ready or willing to specify a per ecmp route multipath
>>>>> selection algo attribute.  
>>>>
>>>> There is no compelling reason to make the attribute per route. But the
>>>> issue is more that configuration through sysctl's is problematic. It doesn't
>>>> fit into the standard API paradigm. Sysctl's are like routing patches not
>>>> part of the real CLI. Trying to trap sysctl's for things like switchedev
>>>> offload is particularly problematic. I can see the case for either way,
>>>> and don't have a fixed opinion.  
>>>
>>> ok. understand the switchdev offload part. It was that way in the past...but
>>> today you can listen to sysctl updates on the netconf netlink channel.
>>> it works pretty well.
>>
>> Is there another patch to add the NETCONFA_ECMP support?
>>
> 
> does userspace care?
Yes, I think it is needed so that userspace can correctly monitor this behavior.
It also enables to check this parameter through netlink.


Regards,
Nicolas