netdev - Re: [net v1] fib_rules: interface group matching

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <c4f00f4e-aad3-f3d4-3c7c-8fe39c8f1720@cumulusnetworks.com>
Date:   Wed, 14 Sep 2016 09:25:49 -0600
From:   David Ahern <dsa@...ulusnetworks.com>
To:     Vincent Bernat <vincent@...nat.im>
Cc:     "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Nicolas Dichtel <nicolas.dichtel@...nd.com>,
        Wilson Kok <wkok@...ulusnetworks.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [net v1] fib_rules: interface group matching

On 9/14/16 9:14 AM, Vincent Bernat wrote:
> I could just give more time to VRF. I also had some concerns over
> performance with the way Netfilter integration is done, but I understand
> that I could just stay away from POSTROUTING rules which is the only
> hook executed twice?
> 

With the changes that were committed this past weekend, the VRF code is now setup where I can set a flag on a per VRF basis to disable the extra rx and tx processing - ie., no network taps, no netfilter, no qdisc, etc. Drops the overhead of VRF to ~3% maybe a bit less. I need to think about the user api a bit more and formalize the patch. Given my other commitments that probably won't happen until mid-October. But in terms of a building block, the overhead of VRF is continuing to drop.