netdev - Re: Let's do P4

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: <20161102152325.GK1713@nanopsycho.orion>
Date:   Wed, 2 Nov 2016 16:23:25 +0100
From:   Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
To:     John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>
Cc:     Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>,
        Thomas Graf <tgraf@...g.ch>, Jakub Kicinski <kubakici@...pl>,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net, jhs@...atatu.com,
        roopa@...ulusnetworks.com, simon.horman@...ronome.com,
        ast@...nel.org, daniel@...earbox.net, prem@...efootnetworks.com,
        hannes@...essinduktion.org, jbenc@...hat.com, tom@...bertland.com,
        mattyk@...lanox.com, idosch@...lanox.com, eladr@...lanox.com,
        yotamg@...lanox.com, nogahf@...lanox.com, ogerlitz@...lanox.com,
        linville@...driver.com, andy@...yhouse.net, f.fainelli@...il.com,
        dsa@...ulusnetworks.com, vivien.didelot@...oirfairelinux.com,
        andrew@...n.ch, ivecera@...hat.com,
        Maciej Żenczykowski <zenczykowski@...il.com>
Subject: Re: Let's do P4

Wed, Nov 02, 2016 at 04:18:06PM CET, john.fastabend@...il.com wrote:
>On 16-11-02 01:07 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>> Tue, Nov 01, 2016 at 04:13:32PM CET, john.fastabend@...il.com wrote:

[...]


>[...]>
>>>
>>> Same question as above are we _really_ talking about pushing the entire
>>> programmability of the device via 'tc'. If so we need to have a vendor
>>> say they will support and implement this?
>> 
>> We need some API, and I believe that TC is perfectly suitable for that.
>> Why do you think it's a problem?
>> 
>
>For runtime configuration completely agree. For device configuration
>I don't see the advantage of adding an entire device specific compiler
>in the driver. The device is a set of CAMs, TCAMs, ALUs, instruction
>caches, etc. its not like a typical NIC/switch where you just bang
>some registers. Unless its all done in firmware but that creates an
>entirely different set of problems like how to update your compiler.
>
>Bottom line we need to have a proof point of a driver in kernel
>to see exactly how a P4 configuration would work. Again runtime config
>and device topology/capabilities discovery I'm completely on board.

I think we need to implement P4 world in rocker. Any volunteer? :)