netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v4 06/10] netdev: add netdevice notifier type to trigger a reprogramming of offloads

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: <5691439F.5090500@stressinduktion.org>
Date:	Sat, 9 Jan 2016 18:30:07 +0100
From:	Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>
To:	Tom Herbert <tom@...bertland.com>
Cc:	Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Jesse Gross <jesse@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v4 06/10] netdev: add netdevice notifier type to
 trigger a reprogramming of offloads

On 09.01.2016 18:25, Tom Herbert wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 7:07 AM, Hannes Frederic Sowa
> <hannes@...essinduktion.org> wrote:
>> Signed-off-by: Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>
>> ---
>>   include/linux/netdevice.h | 1 +
>>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/include/linux/netdevice.h b/include/linux/netdevice.h
>> index 8d8e5ca951b493..9750e46760695d 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/netdevice.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/netdevice.h
>> @@ -2183,6 +2183,7 @@ struct netdev_lag_lower_state_info {
>>   #define NETDEV_BONDING_INFO    0x0019
>>   #define NETDEV_PRECHANGEUPPER  0x001A
>>   #define NETDEV_CHANGELOWERSTATE        0x001B
>> +#define NETDEV_REFRESH_OFFLOADS        0x001C
>>
> Per previous discussion we don't want to generalize this current
> offload interface. Can we just NETDEV_UP as the notifier?

The problem with only using NETDEV_UP/REGISTER is that some drivers need 
to reconfigure their offloads during operation while keeping the 
netdevice in UP state. One example is ixgbe. This was my first idea also.

I am fine with both approaches, my initial submission had two types to 
notify geneve and vxlan so their doesn't happen any "cross-over".

Bye,
Hannes