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: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 19:12:02 -0400 From: Jesse Gross <jesse@...ira.com> To: Tom Herbert <therbert@...gle.com> Cc: Andy Zhou <azhou@...ira.com>, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, Linux Netdev List <netdev@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [net-next 02/10] udp: Expand UDP tunnel common APIs On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 6:38 PM, Tom Herbert <therbert@...gle.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 2:56 PM, Jesse Gross <jesse@...ira.com> wrote: >> On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 5:16 PM, Tom Herbert <therbert@...gle.com> wrote: >>> On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 2:02 PM, Andy Zhou <azhou@...ira.com> wrote: >>>> On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 12:52 PM, Tom Herbert <therbert@...gle.com> wrote: >>>>>> --- a/include/net/udp_tunnel.h >>>>>> +++ b/include/net/udp_tunnel.h >>>>>> @@ -1,7 +1,10 @@ >>>>>> #ifndef __NET_UDP_TUNNEL_H >>>>>> #define __NET_UDP_TUNNEL_H >>>>>> >>>>>> -#define UDP_TUNNEL_TYPE_VXLAN 0x01 >>>>>> +#include <net/ip_tunnels.h> >>>>>> + >>>>>> +#define UDP_TUNNEL_TYPE_VXLAN 0x01 >>>>>> +#define UDP_TUNNEL_TYPE_GENEVE 0x02 >>>>>> >>>>> Why do we need to define these? Caller should know what type of port is >>>>> being opened and provide appropriate encap_rcv. >>>> >>>> Assume udp tunnel layer needs to keep track of open ports, should it >>>> also keep track of the protocol associated with the port? >>>> >>> For what purpose? Other than for offloads and rcv_encap functions that >>> provide the service function anyway, what need is there for UDP layer >>> to know about this. More to the point, if I add a module to the kernel >>> with a new flavor of UDP tunneling, I shouldn't have to touch any core >>> code for things to work correctly. So by this line of thinking, >>> neither the terms VXLAN nor GENEVE should appear in any common code. >> >> The hardware will need to know what the header format is so that it >> can parse the packets on receive. And since the NIC can't exactly call >> into a function pointer like GRO can, I'm not sure that there is a >> solution that doesn't involve an identifier that needs to be listed >> somewhere. This is a pretty minimal impact - it doesn't actually >> appear in the core code. > > The hardware doesn't *need* to know this, it's must be optional and > should have no bearing on the software stack. Suggest to put them in > their own header file. Also, as HW features these should appear in > NETIF_F_* list so that we can control on a per device level rather to > enable this feature (something like how NETIF_F_GSO_* was done). Right - I meant for hardware offload. Obviously, pure software implementations should continue to work fine with the tunnel stack (as it does here). I don't have any particular objection to moving them to a different file (udp_offload.h?) but I agree with Alex that these are slightly different than hardware feature flags. > What about support for L2TP/UDP? It should be possible to take advantage of the common UDP tunnel code here as well. I believe that Andy is planning on doing it as a follow up patch, which would be a good example of a pure software implementation. -- 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