netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v3] net: ipv4: add support for ECMP hash policy choice

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: <20170314162715.141f1d4b@xeon-e3>
Date:   Tue, 14 Mar 2017 16:27:15 -0700
From:   Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>
To:     Roopa Prabhu <roopa@...ulusnetworks.com>
Cc:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Nikolay Aleksandrov <nikolay@...ulusnetworks.com>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        David Ahern <dsa@...ulusnetworks.com>, jkbs@...hat.com,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Peter Christensen <pch@...bogen.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v3] net: ipv4: add support for ECMP hash policy
 choice

On Tue, 14 Mar 2017 15:38:40 -0700
Roopa Prabhu <roopa@...ulusnetworks.com> wrote:

> >> >> > That's what my initial version did, but this was discussed during NetConf in Seville
> >> >> > and it was decided that it's best to make a global sysctl, thus the change.  
> >> >>
> >> >> Correct, we discussed this, and we all agreed to only have a sysctl for now.  
> >> >
> >> > Why? If you are going to have private discussions please post the rationale
> >> > in public.  
> >>
> >> Stephen, is there any reason to have a per ecmp route multipath algo
> >> selection ?.
> >> All platforms have a global multipath selection algo. I also don't see
> >> routing daemons ready or willing to specify a per ecmp route multipath
> >> selection algo attribute.  
> >
> > There is no compelling reason to make the attribute per route. But the
> > issue is more that configuration through sysctl's is problematic. It doesn't
> > fit into the standard API paradigm. Sysctl's are like routing patches not
> > part of the real CLI. Trying to trap sysctl's for things like switchedev
> > offload is particularly problematic. I can see the case for either way,
> > and don't have a fixed opinion.  
> 
> ok. understand the switchdev offload part. It was that way in the past...but
> today you can listen to sysctl updates on the netconf netlink channel.
> it works pretty well.

Is there another patch to add the NETCONFA_ECMP support?