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

Message-ID: <20151209222544.GF11201@pox.localdomain>
Date:	Wed, 9 Dec 2015 23:25:44 +0100
From:	Thomas Graf <tgraf@...g.ch>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:	alexei.starovoitov@...il.com, jhs@...atatu.com,
	john.fastabend@...il.com, tom@...bertland.com,
	hannes@...essinduktion.org, linville@...driver.com,
	jesse@...nel.org, anjali.singhai@...el.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	kiran.patil@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/6] net: Generalize udp based tunnel offload

On 12/09/15 at 05:21pm, David Miller wrote:
> It is clearly the most appropriate middle layer representation.
> 
> The fact that BPF could be generated from any P4 program, yet the
> reverse is not true, tells me everything I need to know.
> 
> I'm sorry if you have either a mental or a time invenstment in P4, but
> I really don't see it as really suitable for this.

I don't. I like the approach and the effect it has on a currently
very vendor secrets oriented environment.

I won't drag this further. I'm perfectly fine if BPF is suitable for
a wide range of hardware models.
--
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