netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] openvswitch: report features supported by the kernel datapath

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]

Message-ID: <CAEP_g=9LMhjEn5X+9J8KDdqVxLBNiCjKGBG_a-_aCYWHwDBy3Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Fri, 9 Oct 2015 15:06:33 -0700
From:	Jesse Gross <jesse@...ira.com>
To:	Jiri Benc <jbenc@...hat.com>
Cc:	Thomas Graf <tgraf@...g.ch>, netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	"dev@...nvswitch.org" <dev@...nvswitch.org>,
	Pravin Shelar <pshelar@...ira.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] openvswitch: report features supported by the
 kernel datapath

On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 2:46 AM, Jiri Benc <jbenc@...hat.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Oct 2015 11:24:53 +0200, Thomas Graf wrote:
>> On 10/08/15 at 03:40pm, Jesse Gross wrote:
>> > I have similar concerns as were expressed in the other thread. The
>> > features listed here aren't OVS components and I don't think that it
>> > makes sense for OVS to try to cover everything that is related - the
>> > goal that we've been working towards is to have OVS be less monolithic
>> > and more integrated. So to the extent that it is necessary to have
>> > capabilities be exposed (and I would like to avoid this where
>> > possible), it should be in the individual component, not in OVS.
>
> Fair enough. Note that the IPv6 flag really belongs to ovs, though -
> it's about the existence of OVS_TUNNEL_KEY_ATTR_IPV6_SRC and
> OVS_TUNNEL_KEY_ATTR_IPV6_DST netlink attributes. For the lwtunnel flag
> (which is just another way to tell whether vxlan/geneve/etc. has
> COLLECT_METADATA support) I can agree that it does not belong to ovs.

We actually already have a mechanism for handling compatibility as new
keys are added without requiring capabilities bits - see
Documentation/networking/openvswitch.txt. We've used this quite a few
times, including the addition of baseline tunnel capabilities.

That doesn't really cover IPv6 capability for individual tunneling
protocols though (which could vary on a per-protocol basis).
--
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