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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2017 12:46:23 +0200 From: Nikolay Aleksandrov <nikolay@...ulusnetworks.com> To: nicolas.dichtel@...nd.com Cc: David Ahern <dsa@...ulusnetworks.com>, Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>, Roopa Prabhu <roopa@...ulusnetworks.com>, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, "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 > On Mar 15, 2017, at 11:17 AM, Nicolas Dichtel <nicolas.dichtel@...nd.com> wrote: > > 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 This doesn’t fit the NETCONFA model well, there is no “all”, “default” or per iface option to be set, also the other multipath sysctl which affects behaviour doesn’t have a notification. Thanks, Nik
Powered by blists - more mailing lists