netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH v0 1/2] net: bridge: propagate FDB table into hardware

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: <4F3407F7.9000202@intel.com>
Date:	Thu, 09 Feb 2012 09:52:55 -0800
From:	John Fastabend <john.r.fastabend@...el.com>
To:	Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>
CC:	bhutchings@...arflare.com, roprabhu@...co.com,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, mst@...hat.com, chrisw@...hat.com,
	davem@...emloft.net, gregory.v.rose@...el.com, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
	sri@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v0 1/2] net: bridge: propagate FDB table into hardware

On 2/9/2012 9:40 AM, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> On Thu, 09 Feb 2012 09:36:47 -0800
> John Fastabend <john.r.fastabend@...el.com> wrote:
> 
>> But the device features makes it easy for user space to learn that the device
>> supports this sort of offload. Now if all SR-IOV devices support this then it
>> doesn't matter but I thought there were SR-IOV devices that didn't do any
>> switching? I'll dig through the SR-IOV drivers to check there are not too
>> many of them.
> 
> If user space needs to know then the OS is not designed properly.
> The purpose of the network device is to abstract all those details, and more and more
> of them are bleeding through. This makes writing management applications harder and makes
> things dependent on features that may or may not be present. The best design is when
> the change is invisible.
> 

Agreed.

>> By netlink_notifier do you mean adding a notifier_block and using atomic_notifier_call_chain()
>> probably in rtnl_notify()? Then drivers could register with the notifier chain with
>> atomic_notifier_chain_register() and receive the events correctly. Or did I miss
>> some notifier chain that already exists?
> 
> Yes. that is what I mean. The callbacks you need may or may not already be present.


OK thanks I'll put together an update here shortly.
--
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