netdev - Re: [RFC v4] Add TCP encap

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 24 Apr 2012 07:32:55 +0900
From:	Simon Horman <horms@...ge.net.au>
To:	Jesse Gross <jesse@...ira.com>
Cc:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, shemminger@...tta.com,
	jhs@...atatu.com, stephen.hemminger@...tta.com,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, dev@...nvswitch.org, eric.dumazet@...il.com
Subject: Re: [RFC v4] Add TCP encap_rcv hook (repost)

On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 02:38:07PM -0700, Jesse Gross wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 2:08 PM, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote:
> > From: Jesse Gross <jesse@...ira.com>
> > Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 13:53:42 -0700
> >
> >> On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 1:13 PM, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote:
> >>> From: Jesse Gross <jesse@...ira.com>
> >>> Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 13:08:49 -0700
> >>>
> >>>> Assuming that the TCP stack generates large TSO frames on transmit
> >>>> (which could be the local stack; something sent by a VM; or packets
> >>>> received, coalesced by GRO and then encapsulated by STT) then you can
> >>>> just prepend the STT header (possibly slightly adjusting things like
> >>>> requested MSS, number of segments, etc. slightly).  After that it's
> >>>> possible to just output the resulting frame through the IP stack like
> >>>> all tunnels do today.
> >>>
> >>> Which seems to potentially suggest a stronger intergration of the STT
> >>> tunnel transmit path into our IP stack rather than the approach Simon
> >>> is taking
> >>
> >> Did you have something in mind?
> >
> > A normal bonafide tunnel netdevice driver like GRE instead of the
> > openvswitch approach Simon is using.
> 
> Ahh, yes, that I agree with.  Independent of this, there's work being
> done to make it so that OVS can use the normal in-tree tunneling code
> and not need its own.  Once that's done I expect that STT will follow
> the same model.

Hi Jesse,

I am wondering how firm the plans to on allowing OVS to use in-tree tunnel
code are. I'm happy to move my efforts over to an in-tree STT implementation
but ultimately I would like to get STT running in conjunction with OVS.
--
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