netdev - Re: [PATCH net v2] switchdev: don't abort hardware ipv4 fib offload on failure to program fib entry in hardware

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]

Date:	Mon, 18 May 2015 22:58:54 -0700
From:	roopa <roopa@...ulusnetworks.com>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
CC:	john.r.fastabend@...el.com, sfeldma@...il.com,
	john.fastabend@...il.com, jiri@...nulli.us, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net v2] switchdev: don't abort hardware ipv4 fib offload
 on failure to program fib entry in hardware

On 5/18/15, 8:48 PM, David Miller wrote:
> From: John Fastabend <john.r.fastabend@...el.com>
> Date: Mon, 18 May 2015 17:21:29 -0700
>
>> So how about having an error strategy sysctl field that we can set
>> at provisioning time. I think this would align to Roopa's option (b).
>> This way we can default to "transparent" mode and the users where
>> this wont work can set the error mode. This way user land software
>> stacks that work today should continue to work in both modes.
> Alert: This is not a switch provisioning issue.
>
> You can frame it like that all day, and continue to talk about
> low power cpus or other things which are completely and utterly
> irrelevant.
>
> Stop looking at how some specific piece of hardware is configured,
> and think about what actually is asking the kernel to do stuff.
>
> That's because the real issue is _semantics_ and what a Linux machine
> is expected to do when you insert a route and valid reasons why a
> route insertion can fail.
>
> That is the _only_ issue.
>
> And that has to do with what semantics _applcations_ making these
> routing change requests expect.
>
> There is nothing else that matters.
>
> And since it is an issue of what semantics those application want and
> are able to handle, that is where the request of changed behavior
> belongs.
>
> If we added your suggested sysctl, we'd have to name it
> "sysctl_break_all_my_apps_please" because that is exactly what it
> would be doing. :-)
understood. This seems to lean towards option c) where app explicitly 
requests offload with RTNH_F_OFFLOAD for every route.

from where I see, with the limitations on these boxes,
this requires every app, every `ip route` cmd running on the box to 
explicitly specify offload when running on this hardware. In which case 
having a way to specify a global system policy seemed appropriate. Hence 
the sysctl suggestion.

--
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