netdev - Re: [patch net-next RFC 0/4] introduce infrastructure for support of switch chip datapath

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: <5331FE69.30505@mojatatu.com>
Date:	Tue, 25 Mar 2014 18:08:41 -0400
From:	Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>
To:	tgraf <tgraf@...g.ch>, Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
CC:	Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>, Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>,
	netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, andy <andy@...yhouse.net>,
	dborkman <dborkman@...hat.com>, ogerlitz <ogerlitz@...lanox.com>,
	jesse <jesse@...ira.com>, pshelar <pshelar@...ira.com>,
	azhou <azhou@...ira.com>, Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk>,
	Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>,
	jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com, vyasevic <vyasevic@...hat.com>,
	Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
	John Fastabend <john.r.fastabend@...el.com>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
	Scott Feldman <sfeldma@...ulusnetworks.com>,
	Lennert Buytenhek <buytenh@...tstofly.org>,
	Felix Fietkau <nbd@...nwrt.org>
Subject: Re: [patch net-next RFC 0/4] introduce infrastructure for support
 of switch chip datapath

On 03/25/14 17:39, tgraf wrote:
> On 03/25/14 at 01:00pm, Florian Fainelli wrote:

>
> I think all it takes is to correctly apply the existing separation
> which is already available but not applied right now.
>
> We already have the L2/L3 separation in place:
>
> net_device vs in_device/inet6_dev/....
>
> A pure L2 device that will never do L3 on the CPU would only
> need to set a flag which we check before allocating a in_device
> and therefore prevent from all the L3 configs to be exposed.


I think we need much deeper discussion on the topic of other
functions that may not be directly connected to netdevs
(v4/6 forwarding, ACL, etc).
In my opinion - if a chip knows how to do L3, then i have
a choice to just send a FIB add via netlink and specify
where it goes (hardware vs software or both).
The bridge ports with underlying hardware FDB entries as
an example already work this way (although i am not fond
of the naming convention used).

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