[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <466ec41a-24b7-43a9-b75f-94556785800a@openvpn.net>
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2024 10:56:13 +0100
From: Antonio Quartulli <antonio@...nvpn.net>
To: Sergey Ryazanov <ryazanov.s.a@...il.com>
Cc: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Donald Hunter <donald.hunter@...il.com>,
Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, sd@...asysnail.net,
Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, steffen.klassert@...unet.com,
antony.antony@...unet.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v11 02/23] net: introduce OpenVPN Data Channel
Offload (ovpn)
On 06/11/2024 01:31, Sergey Ryazanov wrote:
[...]
>> Both UDP and TCP sockets ae supported.
>
> s/ae/are/
ACK
>
>> As explained above, in case of P2MP mode, OpenVPN will use the main
>> system
>> routing table to decide which packet goes to which peer. This implies
>> that no routing table was re-implemented in the `ovpn` kernel module.
>>
>> This kernel module can be enabled by selecting the CONFIG_OVPN entry
>> in the networking drivers section.
>
> Most of the above text has no relation to the patch itself. Should it be
> moved to the cover letter?
>
I think this needs to be in the git history.
We are introducing a new kernel module and this is the presentation, so
I expect this to live in git.
This was the original text when ovpn was a 1/1 patch.
I can better clarify what this patch is doing and what comes in
following patches, if that can help.
[...]
>> --- a/drivers/net/Kconfig
>> +++ b/drivers/net/Kconfig
>> @@ -115,6 +115,19 @@ config WIREGUARD_DEBUG
>> Say N here unless you know what you're doing.
>> +config OVPN
>> + tristate "OpenVPN data channel offload"
>> + depends on NET && INET
>> + select NET_UDP_TUNNEL
>> + select DST_CACHE
>> + select CRYPTO
>> + select CRYPTO_AES
>> + select CRYPTO_GCM
>> + select CRYPTO_CHACHA20POLY1305
>
> nit: Options from NET_UDP_TUNNEL to CRYPTO_CHACHA20POLY1305 are not
> required for changes introduced in this patch. Should they be moved to
> corresponding patches?
Originally I wanted to introduce all deps with patch 1, but then I added
STREAM_PARSER to the TCP patch.
I will do the same with the others and add deps only when needed.
[...]
>> +/* Driver info */
>> +#define DRV_DESCRIPTION "OpenVPN data channel offload (ovpn)"
>> +#define DRV_COPYRIGHT "(C) 2020-2024 OpenVPN, Inc."
>
> nit: these strings are used only once for MODULE_{DESCRIPTION,AUTHOR}
> below. Can we directly use strings to avoid levels of indirection?
I liked to have these defines at the top as if they were some form of
greeting :) But I can move them down and drop the constants.
>
>> +
>> +/**
>> + * ovpn_dev_is_valid - check if the netdevice is of type 'ovpn'
>> + * @dev: the interface to check
>> + *
>> + * Return: whether the netdevice is of type 'ovpn'
>> + */
>> +bool ovpn_dev_is_valid(const struct net_device *dev)
>> +{
>> + return dev->netdev_ops->ndo_start_xmit == ovpn_net_xmit;
>
> You can directly check for the ops matching saving one dereferencing
> operation:
>
> return dev->netdev_ops == &ovpn_netdev_ops;
>
I see all net drivers do what you are suggesting.
Will do the same, thanks
> You can define an empty ovpn_netdev_ops struct for this purpose in this
> patch and fill ops later with next patches. This way you can even move
> the ovpn_net_xmit() definition to the interface creation/destruction patch.
It's a device driver, so having a placeholder xmit() in the first patch
doesn't sound that bad :-)
And xmit is more about packet flow rather than creation/destruction.
I prefer to keep the stub here.
[...]
>> --- a/include/uapi/linux/udp.h
>> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/udp.h
>> @@ -43,5 +43,6 @@ struct udphdr {
>> #define UDP_ENCAP_GTP1U 5 /* 3GPP TS 29.060 */
>> #define UDP_ENCAP_RXRPC 6
>> #define TCP_ENCAP_ESPINTCP 7 /* Yikes, this is really xfrm encap
>> types. */
>> +#define UDP_ENCAP_OVPNINUDP 8 /* OpenVPN traffic */
>
> nit: this specific change does not belong to this specific patch.
Right. Like for the Kconfig, I wanted to keep "general" changes and
things that touch the rest of the kernel in this patch.
But since we are moving other things to related patches, I will also
move this to the UDP patch.
Thanks!
Regards,
--
Antonio Quartulli
OpenVPN Inc.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists