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
| ||
|
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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists