linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next V2 1/3] tun: abstract flow steering logic

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: <22150764-5ced-981a-4170-defea16aaafe@redhat.com>
Date:   Thu, 2 Nov 2017 11:51:03 +0800
From:   Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>
To:     "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
Cc:     Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>,
        Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Tom Herbert <tom@...bertland.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next V2 1/3] tun: abstract flow steering logic



On 2017年11月02日 11:45, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 02, 2017 at 11:43:48AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
>>
>> On 2017年11月02日 09:11, Willem de Bruijn wrote:
>>> On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 7:32 PM, Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com> wrote:
>>>> tun now use flow caches based automatic queue steering method. This
>>>> may not suffice all user cases. To extend it to be able to use more
>>>> flow steering policy, this patch abstracts flow steering logic into
>>>> tun_steering_ops, then we can declare and use different methods in
>>>> the future.
>>>> Signed-off-by: Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>    drivers/net/tun.c | 85 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------
>>>>    1 file changed, 63 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/tun.c b/drivers/net/tun.c
>>>> index ea29da9..bff6259 100644
>>> The previous RFC enabled support for multiple pluggable steering
>>> policies. But as all can be implemented in BPF and we only plan to
>>> support an eBPF policy besides the legacy one, this patch is no longer
>>> needed. We can save a few indirect function calls.
>> But we should at least support two kinds of steering policy, so this is
>> still needed?
>>
>> And I'm not quite sure we can implement all kinds of policies through BPF
>> e.g RSS or we may want to offload the queue selection to underlayer switch
>> or nic .
>>
>> Thanks
> I think a simple if condition is preferable for now, too. Let's wait
> until we get some 3/4 of these.
>

That's a solution but we may need if in at least four places. If this is 
ok, I will do it in next version.

Thanks