netdev - Re: [net-next PATCH v2 1/5] introduce IFE action

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]

Date:	Wed, 24 Feb 2016 07:39:25 -0500
From:	Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>
To:	Simon Horman <simon.horman@...ronome.com>,
	Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
Cc:	davem@...emloft.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	xiyou.wangcong@...il.com, alexei.starovoitov@...il.com,
	john.fastabend@...il.com, dj@...izon.com
Subject: Re: [net-next PATCH v2 1/5] introduce IFE action

On 16-02-24 12:46 AM, Simon Horman wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 05:12:34PM +0100, Daniel Borkmann wrote:


>  From my point of view the test should be weather the encapsulation might
> reasonably be expected to be used outside of the context of tc. If so then
> it makes sense to use a netdev to allow sharing of infrastructure between
> different kernel components.
>
> I suspect the answer to that question is no and thus IMHO a netdev would be
> nice to have rather than compelling.
>
> With regards to overhead of netdevs: I think that could be mitigated to
> some extent by using LWT or some other metadata-based approach to allow a
> single netdev to be use by multiple tc action instances.

We actually have a use case where we offload this thing into
an embedded NIC.

In any case it doesnt make much sense to use a netdev for reasons i
specified. Just like it doesnt make sense when i want a policy which
pushes or pops vlans or vxlans to use netdevs either.
Yes it quacks like a duck(i.e has receive) and walks like a duck(has
stats) but it looks like an ostrich;->

cheers,
jamal