netdev - RE: [PATCH v1 1/6] net: Generalize udp based tunnel offload

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: <C40BE8378EF49C44B9184714DBC8EF29939A13AA@ORSMSX115.amr.corp.intel.com>
Date:	Tue, 24 Nov 2015 00:32:25 +0000
From:	"Singhai, Anjali" <anjali.singhai@...el.com>
To:	Jesse Gross <jesse@...nel.org>, Tom Herbert <tom@...bertland.com>
CC:	Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Patil, Kiran" <kiran.patil@...el.com>,
	"Brandeburg, Jesse" <jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v1 1/6] net: Generalize udp based tunnel offload



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jesse Gross [mailto:jesse@...nel.org]
> Sent: Monday, November 23, 2015 2:50 PM
> To: Tom Herbert
> Cc: Singhai, Anjali; Linux Kernel Network Developers; Patil, Kiran
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/6] net: Generalize udp based tunnel offload
> 
> On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 1:53 PM, Tom Herbert <tom@...bertland.com>
> wrote:
> >> diff --git a/include/net/udp_tunnel.h b/include/net/udp_tunnel.h
> >> index cb2f89f..72415aa 100644
> >> --- a/include/net/udp_tunnel.h
> >> +++ b/include/net/udp_tunnel.h
> >> @@ -9,6 +9,12 @@
> >>  #include <net/addrconf.h>
> >>  #endif
> >>
> >> +enum udp_tunnel_type {
> >> +       UDP_TUNNEL_UNSPEC,
> >> +       UDP_TUNNEL_VXLAN,
> >> +       UDP_TUNNEL_GENEVE,
> >> +};
> >> +
> >
> > Sorry, I still don't like this. Grant it least it gets rid of of VXLAN
> > specific ops, but the problem is there no such things as a common set
> > of encapsulations in the kernel (e.g. foo-over-udp adds a bunch of
> > encapsulations not represented here), no defined common set of device
> > functionality that needs this, and this precludes the use of the RX
> > accelerations to be available from a userpsace  implementation.
> 
> Regardless, I think this is at least a good cleanup of what is already
> there compared to having VXLAN-specific NDOs. We can always add
> additional things in the future.

Agreed with Jesse that this will help not hurt,  when we are ready to cross the bridge for removing RX side Protocol ossification.