netdev - Re: [net-next PATCH v3 00/12] Flow 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: <20150122164951.GA3417@salvia>
Date:	Thu, 22 Jan 2015 17:49:51 +0100
From:	Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...filter.org>
To:	Thomas Graf <tgraf@...g.ch>
Cc:	Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>,
	John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
	simon.horman@...ronome.com, sfeldma@...il.com,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net, gerlitz.or@...il.com,
	andy@...yhouse.net, ast@...mgrid.com, Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
Subject: Re: [net-next PATCH v3 00/12] Flow API

On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 03:37:27PM +0000, Thomas Graf wrote:
> On 01/22/15 at 10:28am, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote:
> > On 01/22/15 10:13, Thomas Graf wrote:
> > 
> > >I don't follow this. John's proposal allows to decide on a case by
> > >case basis what we want to export. Just like with ethtool or
> > >RTNETLINK. There is no direct access to hardware. A user can only
> > >configure what is being exposed by the kernel.
> > >
> > 
> > So if i am a vendor with my own driver, I can expose whatever i want.
> 
> No. We will reject any driver change attempting to do so on this
> list.

I think those vendors do not want to push those driver changes
mainstream. They will likely use these new ndo's to fully expose their
vendor-specific capabilities distributed in proprietary blobs.

I remember to have seen one ugly patch for netfilter that added
several hook functions (not netfilter hooks) at different positions of
the NAT code, the goal was to offload NAT through hardware. I was told
the code that was using those ad-hoc hooks was distributed in a binary
blob.

> This is the whole point of this: Coming up with a model that allows
> to describe capabilities and offer flow programming capabilities
> in a Vendor neutral way. A "push_vlan" or "pop_vlan" action will work
> with any driver that supports it.

Right, we need an abstraction for actions too, and the infrastructure
should not provide any means to circunvent and expose vendor specific
details.
--
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