netdev - Re: [RFC 0/0] Introducing a generic socket offload framework

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: <20110819102835.0a6b2436@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Date:	Fri, 19 Aug 2011 10:28:35 +0100
From:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To:	San Mehat <san@...gle.com>
Cc:	davem@...emloft.net, mst@...hat.com, rusty@...tcorp.com.au,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	digitaleric@...gle.com, mikew@...gle.com, miche@...gle.com,
	maccarro@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/0] Introducing a generic socket offload framework

> I have no desire to change the 'genericness' of sockets.. just the
> opposite - i wish to
> introduce the notion that sockets (can be) completely generic (when
> offloaded) as far as
> the guest is concerned.

I suppose my concern is that you don't want to design for a specific
offload device, your offload might change but the view from the
application side should not differ.

> > This guest only view means you can't use the abstraction for local
> > sockets too.
> >
> 
> To be honest, the way we're attempting to integrate is in such a way
> that you *could*
> offload AF_LOCAL sockets...  but that world gets a bit too much like
> the 'Twilight Zone'
> for my current linkings..

Until you want to be able to have a pair of apps talking that may or may
not be on different systems and may or may not be on a vm host at all, at
which point having the same acceleration between them (a null accelerator
so to speak) would avoid having to add extra paths to the apps.

> > And yes there is still the complicated cases such as 'the routing table
> > has changed from vitual host to via siberia now what' but I don't believe
> > your proposal addresses that either.
> 
> Can you be more specific? If you mean solving the 'keeping your tcp connections
> open to non virtual endpoints across a migration (or whatever)' then
> no it doesn't :)

That was my assumption.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html