linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH net-next 1/1] net: Support for switch port configuration

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: <54887CF7.70708@gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 10 Dec 2014 09:03:51 -0800
From:	John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>
To:	Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
CC:	"Varlese, Marco" <marco.varlese@...el.com>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	"stephen@...workplumber.org" <stephen@...workplumber.org>,
	"Fastabend, John R" <john.r.fastabend@...el.com>,
	"roopa@...ulusnetworks.com" <roopa@...ulusnetworks.com>,
	"sfeldma@...il.com" <sfeldma@...il.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH net-next 1/1] net: Support for switch port configuration

On 12/10/2014 08:50 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 05:23:40PM CET, marco.varlese@...el.com wrote:
>> From: Marco Varlese <marco.varlese@...el.com>
>>
>> Switch hardware offers a list of attributes that are configurable
>> on a per port basis.
>> This patch provides a mechanism to configure switch ports by adding
>> an NDO for setting specific values to specific attributes.
>> There will be a separate patch that extends iproute2 to call the
>> new NDO.
>
>
> What are these attributes? Can you give some examples. I'm asking
> because there is a plan to pass generic attributes to switch ports
> replacing current specific ndo_switch_port_stp_update. In this case,
> bridge is setting that attribute.
>
> Is there need to set something directly from userspace or does it make
> rather sense to use involved bridge/ovs/bond ? I think that both will be
> needed.

+1

I think for many attributes it would be best to have both. The in
kernel callers and netlink userspace can use the same driver ndo_ops.

But then we don't _require_ any specific bridge/ovs/etc module. And we
may have some attributes that are not specific to any existing software
module. I'm guessing Marco has some examples of these.

[...]


-- 
John Fastabend         Intel Corporation
--
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/