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
| ||
|
Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2013 10:25:13 -0700 (PDT) From: Joseph Gasparakis <joseph.gasparakis@...el.com> To: Or Gerlitz <ogerlitz@...lanox.com> cc: Joseph Gasparakis <joseph.gasparakis@...el.com>, John Fastabend <john.r.fastabend@...el.com>, Yan Burman <yanb@...lanox.com>, netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org> Subject: Re: extending ndo_add_rx_vxlan_port On Sun, 27 Oct 2013, Or Gerlitz wrote: > Hi, > > So with commit 53cf527513eed6e7170e9dceacd198f9267171b0 "vxlan: Notify drivers > for listening UDP port changes" drivers that have HW offloads for vxlan can be > notified on which UDP port to listen. Taking this further, some HW may need to > know the multicast address and/or the VNID used by the vxlan instance/s set > above them. In that respect, do we prefer to extend ndo_add_rx_vxlan_port() or > introduce new ndo? > > Or. > The way this patch works is to notify the drivers when a VXLAN UDP port comes up or down. This way drivers do not need to do any sort of accounting. As long as this remains, it sounds fine to me to extend the existing ndo. If by extedning it, drivers now have to keep track of the udp ports so they can determine if a notification is for a new port or not, I would much rather go for introducing a new ndo. Joseph -- 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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists