netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next RFC 0/5] Add NTF_EXT_AGED to control FDB ageing in SW or HW

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sat, 21 Feb 2015 10:31:11 -0800
From:	roopa <roopa@...ulusnetworks.com>
To:	Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
CC:	Viswanath Bandaru <vbandaru@...adcom.com>,
	Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
	"sfeldma@...il.com" <sfeldma@...il.com>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux@...ck-us.net" <linux@...ck-us.net>,
	"andrew@...n.ch" <andrew@...n.ch>,
	"gospo@...ulusnetworks.com" <gospo@...ulusnetworks.com>,
	"siva.mannem.lnx@...il.com" <siva.mannem.lnx@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next RFC 0/5] Add NTF_EXT_AGED to control FDB ageing
 in SW or HW

On 2/21/15, 7:50 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 12:29:38PM CET, vbandaru@...adcom.com wrote:
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> I agree, in fact, most of the HW I have access to only has a global age
>>>> timer configuration knob. Is this configurable on a per-port basis for
>>>> higher end switches, or even maybe per-FDB entry?
>>> I'm currently not aware of any hw which does not have global age timer.
>>> But I believe that they will appear. The model that we have now, to
>>> propagate aging setting of bridge down is more general and should be ok.
>>>
>>> Drivers should probably take care of multi bridge setup with different aging
>>> setup. Maybe to find minimal time and print a warning?
>>>
>> Setting up the minimal time in such a scenario is good.
>>
>> Should we also consider the possibility bridges containing ports from different  devices (and therefore different drivers) ? If that is a possibility, I think the bridge module should take responsibility of finding out the minimal time to pushing to all involved drivers.
> It is certainly possible to bridge ports from multiple switch devices.
> But that should not be a problem, because 1 bridge has 1 aging setup
> which will be passed to all port drivers.
>
> I believe that the only case which need to be resolved is multiple
> bridges over single switch device. And I believe that it should be
> handled in drivers because only drivers know what the hw is capable of
> (if it supports aging setup per port/bridge/global).
>
>>
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