netdev - Re: [PATCH 1/4 net-next] net: phy: add Generic Netlink Ethernet switch configuration API

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: <526EE553.5050408@mojatatu.com>
Date:	Mon, 28 Oct 2013 18:29:39 -0400
From:	Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>
To:	Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
CC:	Felix Fietkau <nbd@...nwrt.org>,
	Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>,
	John Fastabend <john.r.fastabend@...el.com>,
	netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>,
	John Crispin <blogic@...nwrt.org>,
	Jonas Gorski <jogo@...nwrt.org>,
	Gary Thomas <gary@...assoc.com>,
	Vlad Yasevich <vyasevic@...hat.com>,
	Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4 net-next] net: phy: add Generic Netlink Ethernet switch
 configuration API

On 10/27/13 14:14, Florian Fainelli wrote:
> 2013/10/27 Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>:
>> On 10/25/13 09:01, Felix Fietkau wrote:
>>>

>
> They are yes, the only "fancy" features these switches allow is
> basically to set a given's port vlan id, which is already a huge
> improvement compared to the vendor provided firmware.
>

Nice to know that you have something better than the vendor provided
stuff.

>
> The switch does have an address learning process which is usually not
> controlled by software at all, so yes, flooding is usually the way to
> get it to the CPU.
>

Ok.

> Which exact drivers are you refering to? If we are talking about DSA
> then yes, this is correct, but it is completely Ethernet MAC driver
> agnostic.
>

Sorry - cant point you to an exact one; one that i tried to convert to
NAPI and found these issues was from Netlogic (embedded 64 bit mips),
that i think now is in the kernel proper (and someone had converted to
NAPI as well). Let me get back to you with some sample examples..

> Why would we expose the hardware switch physical ports as netdevs if
> we cannot even any control over their data-path? Unlike these
> multiport NICs, the only traffic you see and you can control is the
> one from your CPU port.
>

Not necessarily for datapath, rather for control path. If i can
pull the stats, ifconfig up/down the port, set flow control
etc - then that is a  good reason to expose them.

>
> I do not really see how we could bend the existing interface (is it
> rtnetlink we are talking about or something else btw?) to expose these
> switches, maybe we could with iproute2, but still, the user-space
> interface/tool is far from being the problem here.
>

Look at the FDB API.
The user space interface as well as reusing kernel interfaces is my main
arguement.

> I don't think at any point in this discussion there was a mention that
> we do not want to change the user or kernel interface in OpenWrt
> because we have been using this for the past 5 years, on the contrary,
> if we are bringing this to a wide audience, this is to get some proper
> review and eventually change it.
>

Ok, sorry - I misinterpreted you and Felix. Like i said, if you gave me
that reason I would understand.

cheers,
jamal




--
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