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: <CALx6S35_rXPsYUGcc+yrQX8K1dOcL4aWnmQsa-6X6xULo9BBbg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 30 Nov 2015 17:02:15 -0800
From:	Tom Herbert <tom@...bertland.com>
To:	Jesse Gross <jesse@...nel.org>
Cc:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Anjali Singhai Jain <anjali.singhai@...el.com>,
	Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Kiran Patil <kiran.patil@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/6] net: Generalize udp based tunnel offload

On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 4:25 PM, Jesse Gross <jesse@...nel.org> wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 29, 2015 at 7:21 PM, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote:
>> From: Tom Herbert <tom@...bertland.com>
>> Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 13:53:44 -0800
>>
>>> The bad effect of this model is that it is encourages HW vendors to
>>> continue implement HW protocol specific support for encapsulations, we
>>> get so much more benefit if they implement protocol generic
>>> mechanisms.
>>
>> +1
>
> Regardless of what happens in the future, I think the main question is
> how this relates to the code that is currently present in the tree. We
> already have NDOs for VXLAN offloading, which is about as protocol
> specific as you can get. In my mind, this series is strictly an
> improvement to what is already there - it pulls all hardware
> offloading code out of the various protocol implementations and VXLAN
> out of the driver interface. That seems like a pretty nice cleanup to
> me.

Jesse,

I don't think VXLAN is a good role model here. Consider that Cisco now
is basically trying to obsolete VXLAN in favor of VXLAN-GPE. VXLAN-GPE
is not compatible with VXLAN, so in order to get the same HW offloads
talking VXLAN-GPE users will probably need to swap out their HW. If I
am misreading this situation let me know, but to me this doesn't sound
like a model the stack should endorse.

Tom
--
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