netdev - Re: [patch net-next 00/10] introduce rocker switch driver with hardware accelerated datapath 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: <20141106143254.GB1854@nanopsycho.orion>
Date:	Thu, 6 Nov 2014 15:32:54 +0100
From:	Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
To:	Thomas Graf <tgraf@...g.ch>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net, nhorman@...driver.com,
	andy@...yhouse.net, dborkman@...hat.com, ogerlitz@...lanox.com,
	jesse@...ira.com, pshelar@...ira.com, azhou@...ira.com,
	ben@...adent.org.uk, stephen@...workplumber.org,
	jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com, vyasevic@...hat.com,
	xiyou.wangcong@...il.com, john.r.fastabend@...el.com,
	edumazet@...gle.com, jhs@...atatu.com, sfeldma@...il.com,
	f.fainelli@...il.com, roopa@...ulusnetworks.com,
	linville@...driver.com, jasowang@...hat.com, ebiederm@...ssion.com,
	nicolas.dichtel@...nd.com, ryazanov.s.a@...il.com,
	buytenh@...tstofly.org, aviadr@...lanox.com, nbd@...nwrt.org,
	alexei.starovoitov@...il.com, Neil.Jerram@...aswitch.com,
	ronye@...lanox.com, simon.horman@...ronome.com,
	alexander.h.duyck@...hat.com, john.ronciak@...el.com,
	mleitner@...hat.com, shrijeet@...il.com, gospo@...ulusnetworks.com,
	bcrl@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [patch net-next 00/10] introduce rocker switch driver with
 hardware accelerated datapath api - phase 1: bridge fdb offload

Thu, Nov 06, 2014 at 03:11:30PM CET, tgraf@...g.ch wrote:
>On 11/06/14 at 10:20am, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>> As to the discussion if there is need to have specific class of device
>> representing the switch itself, so far we found no need to introduce that.
>> But we are generally ok with the idea and when the time comes and it will
>> be needed, it can be easily introduced without any disturbance.
>
>I remember that concerns were raised in Duesseldorf and before that
>reusing net_device would imply the expectation of packet rx/tx on that
>net_device which might not necessarily be possible.

For switch object there was an agreement to not use net_device but do
something similar to what wireless does. But this is not subject of
this patchset.

For switch ports, I believe that there is a general agreement to
represent them as net_devices. This patchset does that. Also, you are able to
use this devs as ordinary NICs, set ip on each of tnem and rx/tx.
But of course, the primary usecase is to put them in bridge.

>
>Whereas the model of representing the hardware switch with a
>combination of Linux bridge + switchdev class would ease fullfiling
>existing expecations towards net_device.
>
>That said, I don't see why this shouldn't happen as an evolutionary
>step on top of these patches.

I agree.

--
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