linux-kernel - Re: [patch v4, kernel version 3.2.1] net/ipv4/ip

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]

Message-ID: <CAGsizzLYxsc2MGxF7yK_QzS+3bexHa1F_6+NE87u3F18m7=R1g@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 26 Jan 2012 11:57:30 +0100
From:	Štefan Gula <steweg@...t.sk>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:	jesse@...ira.com, joseph.glanville@...onvm.com.au,
	eric.dumazet@...il.com, kuznet@....inr.ac.ru, jmorris@...ei.org,
	yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org, kaber@...sh.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch v4, kernel version 3.2.1] net/ipv4/ip_gre: Ethernet
 multipoint GRE over IP

2012/1/26 David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>:
> From: Štefan Gula <steweg@...t.sk>
> Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 23:57:18 +0100
>
>> The performance is one of the most critical thing why I have chosen to
>> build kernel patch in the first place instead of some user-space app.
>> If I used this approach, I would probably end up with patch for
>> OpenVPN project instead in that time. I am not telling that
>> openvswitch is not a good place for prototyping, but I believe that
>> this patch is beyond that border as it successfully run in environment
>> with more 98 linux-based APs, used for 4K+ users, with no issue for
>> more than 2 years. The performance results from Joseph Glanville even
>> adds value to it. So I still don't get the point, why my patch and
>> openvswitch cannot coexists in the kernel together and let user/admin
>> to choose to correct solution for him/her.
>
> You don't even know if openvswitch could provide acceptable levels
> of performance, because you haven't even tried.
>
> I'm not applying your patch.
Performance of any user-space application is lower than performance of
something running purely inside the kernel-space only. So still don't
see any valid reason, why it simply cannot coexists as it doesn't
breaks any existing functionality at all?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/