netdev - Re: [PATCH 1/2] net: Add layer 2 hardware acceleration operations for macvlan devices

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: <52533805.2010607@gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 07 Oct 2013 15:39:01 -0700
From:	John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
CC:	nhorman@...driver.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] net: Add layer 2 hardware acceleration operations
 for macvlan devices

On 10/07/2013 02:34 PM, David Miller wrote:
> From: Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>
> Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2013 17:20:00 -0400
>
>> Thats me experimenting.  I was thinking that origionally this functionality
>> might be grouped separately, so that we could handle it independently of the
>> standard network device operations (you might have noticed in v1 of my patch I
>> had a size_t variable in there, so I thought the separation might be
>> organizationally nice).  It was also something I was tinkering with for
>> potential future work to support other data plane accelerators (like the FM6000
>> switch chip from intel) in a manner that didn't pollute the more typical host network
>> devices.  Like I said though, just experimenting at the moment....
>

We can do something like the dcbnl ops and add another pointer off
the net device structure and then use the skb->dev field to find the
correct set of ops? This seems like the simplest option to me and
isolates the ops structure.

Is there some information loss from hanging it off the netdevice
structure vs the skb? I can't see any.

> Can these dataplane devices still act like a normal networking port and
> send and receive packets at the host level?
>

Yes they act like normal networking ports except for there is a
switching component in the hardware. These patches are not looking at
virtual or multiple physical functions at the moment.

> If yes, that would be an extremely strong argument for netdev_ops.

I agree.


-- 
John Fastabend         Intel Corporation
--
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