netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH net-next 0/5] bridge: per vlan lwt and dst

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: <20170123095130.59ddcf34@griffin>
Date:   Mon, 23 Jan 2017 09:51:30 +0100
From:   Jiri Benc <jbenc@...hat.com>
To:     Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
Cc:     Roopa Prabhu <roopa@...ulusnetworks.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        davem@...emloft.net, stephen@...workplumber.org,
        nikolay@...ulusnetworks.com, tgraf@...g.ch,
        hannes@...essinduktion.org, pshelar@....org,
        dsa@...ulusnetworks.com, hadi@...atatu.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH net-next 0/5] bridge: per vlan lwt and dst_metadata
 support

On Mon, 23 Jan 2017 09:08:05 +0100, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 06:46:51AM CET, roopa@...ulusnetworks.com wrote:
> >Other approaches tried and vetoed:
> >- tc vlan push/pop and tunnel metadata dst:
> >    - posses a tc rule scalability problem (2 rules per vni)
> 
> Why it is a problem?

Wanted to ask exactly the same question.

> >    - cannot handle the case where a packet needs to be replicated to
> >      multiple vxlan remote tunnel end-points.. which the vxlan driver
> >      can do today by having multiple remote destinations per fdb.
> 
> Can't you just extend the tc to support this?

+1

> To me, looks like the tc is the correct place to hangle this. Then, the
> user can use it for multiple cases of forwarding, including bridge,
> tc-mirred, ovs and others. Putting this in bridge somehow seems wrong in
> this light. Also, the bridge code is polluted enough as it is. I this we
> should be super-picky to add another code there.

Completely agreed.

 Jiri