| 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: <20141219082754.GE1848@nanopsycho.orion>
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2014 09:27:54 +0100
From: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
To: B Viswanath <marichika4@...il.com>
Cc: Roopa Prabhu <roopa@...ulusnetworks.com>,
"Samudrala, Sridhar" <sridhar.samudrala@...el.com>,
John Fastabend <john.r.fastabend@...el.com>,
"Varlese, Marco" <marco.varlese@...el.com>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Graf <tgraf@...g.ch>,
"sfeldma@...il.com" <sfeldma@...il.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH net-next v2 1/1] net: Support for switch port
configuration
Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 06:14:57AM CET, marichika4@...il.com wrote:
>On 19 December 2014 at 05:18, Roopa Prabhu <roopa@...ulusnetworks.com> wrote:
>> On 12/18/14, 3:26 PM, Samudrala, Sridhar wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 12/18/2014 3:07 PM, Roopa Prabhu wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 12/18/14, 11:21 AM, John Fastabend wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 12/18/2014 10:14 AM, Roopa Prabhu wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 12/18/14, 10:02 AM, Varlese, Marco wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Removed unnecessary content for ease of reading...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> +/* Switch Port Attributes section */
>>>>>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>>>>>> +enum {
>>>>>>>>>>>>> + IFLA_ATTR_UNSPEC,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> + IFLA_ATTR_LEARNING,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Any reason you want learning here ?. This is covered as part of
>>>>>>>>>>>> the bridge setlink attributes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, because the user may _not_ want to go through a bridge
>>>>>>>>>>> interface
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> necessarily.
>>>>>>>>>> But, the bridge setlink/getlink interface was changed to
>>>>>>>>>> accommodate
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 'self'
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> for exactly such cases.
>>>>>>>>>> I kind of understand your case for the other attributes (these are
>>>>>>>>>> per port settings that switch asics provide).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> However, i don't understand the reason to pull in bridge attributes
>>>>>>>>>> here.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Maybe, I am missing something so you might help. The learning
>>>>>>>>> attribute -
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> in my case - it is like all other attributes: a port attribute (as
>>>>>>>> you said, port
>>>>>>>> settings that the switch provides per port).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So, what I was saying is "why the user shall go through a bridge to
>>>>>>>>> configure
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> the learning attribute"? From my perspective, it is as any other
>>>>>>>> attribute and
>>>>>>>> as such configurable on the port.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thinking about this some more, i don't see why any of these
>>>>>>>> attributes
>>>>>>>> (except loopback. I dont understand the loopback attribute) cant be
>>>>>>>> part of
>>>>>>>> the birdge port attributes.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> With this we will end up adding l2 attributes in two places: the
>>>>>>>> general link
>>>>>>>> attributes and bridge attributes.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And since we have gone down the path of using
>>>>>>>> ndo_bridge_setlink/getlink
>>>>>>>> with 'self'....we should stick to that for all l2 attributes.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The idea of overloading ndo_bridge_set/getlink, was to have the same
>>>>>>>> set of
>>>>>>>> attributes but support both cases where the user wants to go through
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> bridge driver or directly to the switch port driver. So, you are not
>>>>>>>> really going
>>>>>>>> through the bridge driver if you use 'self' and
>>>>>>>> ndo_bridge_setlink/getlink.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Roopa, one of the comments I got from Thomas Graf on my v1 patch
>>>>>>> was that your patch and mine were supplementary ("I think Roopa's
>>>>>>> patches are supplementary. Not all switchdev users will be backed
>>>>>>> with a Linux Bridge. I therefore welcome your patches very
>>>>>>> much")... I also understood by others that the patch made sense for
>>>>>>> the same reason. I simply do not understand why these attributes
>>>>>>> (and maybe others in the future) could not be configured directly
>>>>>>> on a standard port but have to go through a bridge.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> ok, i am very confused in that case. The whole moving of bridge
>>>>>> attributes from the bridge driver to rtnetlink.c was to make the
>>>>>> bridge attributes accessible to any driver who wants to set l2/bridge
>>>>>> attributes on their switch ports. So, its unclear to me why we are
>>>>>> doing this parallel thing again. This move to rtnetlink.c was done
>>>>>> during the recent rocker support. so, maybe scott/jiri can elaborate
>>>>>> more.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Not sure if this will add to the confusion or help. But you do not
>>>>> need to have the bridge.ko loaded or netdev's attached to a bridge
>>>>> to use the setlink/getlink ndo ops and netlink messages.
>>>>>
>>>>> This was intentionally done. Its already used with NIC devices to
>>>>> configure embedded bridge settings such as VEB/VEPA.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> that helps my case, thanks.
>>>
>>>
>>> So the user interface to set/get the per-port attributes will be via
>>> 'bridge', not 'ip'
>>>
>>> bridge link set dev sw0p1 port_attr bcast_flooding 1 self
>>> bridge link get dev sw0p1 port_attr bcast_flooding self
>>
>>
>> yes, l2 attributes.
>>>
>>>
>>> We also need an interface to set per-switch attributes. Can this work?
>>> bridge link set dev sw0 sw_attr bcast_flooding 1 master
>>> where sw0 is a bridge representing the hardware switch.
>>
>>
>> Not today. We discussed this @ LPC, and one way to do this would be to have
>> a device
>> representing the switch asic. This is in the works.
>
>
>Can I assume that on platforms which house more than one asic (say
>two 24 port asics, interconnected via a 10G link or equivalent, to get
>a 48 port 'switch') , the 'rocker' driver (or similar) should expose
>them as a single set of ports, and not as two 'switch ports' ?
Well that really depends on particular implementation and drivers. If you
have 2 pci-e devices, I think you should expose them as 2 entities. For
sure, you can have the driver to do the masking for you. I don't believe
that is correct though.
>
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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
--
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