netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next,RFC 00/13] New fast forwarding path

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:   Fri, 15 Jun 2018 08:17:41 +0200
From:   Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>
To:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
CC:     <pablo@...filter.org>, <netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next,RFC 00/13] New fast forwarding path

On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 10:18:31AM -0700, David Miller wrote:
> From: Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...filter.org>
> Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2018 16:19:34 +0200
> 
> > This patchset proposes a new fast forwarding path infrastructure
> > that combines the GRO/GSO and the flowtable infrastructures. The
> > idea is to add a hook at the GRO layer that is invoked before the
> > standard GRO protocol offloads. This allows us to build custom
> > packet chains that we can quickly pass in one go to the neighbour
> > layer to define fast forwarding path for flows.
> 
> We have full, complete, customizability of the packet path via XDP
> and eBPF.
> 
> XDP and eBPF supports everything necessary to accomplish that,
> there are implementations of forwarding implementations in
> the tree and elsewhere.
> 
> And most importantly, XDP and eBPF are optimized in drivers and
> offloaded to hardware.
> 
> There really is no need for something like what you are proposing.

I started with this last year because I wanted to improve
the IPsec (and UDP) forwarding path. Batching packets
at layer2  and send them directly to the output path
seemed to be a good method to improve this.

In particular, we need to do only one IPsec lookup
for the whole packet chain. So it relaxes the pain
from reomoving the IPsec flowcache a bit. It can be
only a first step, but we need some improvements here
as people start to complain about that.