netdev - Re: [RFC net-next v2] bridge lwtunnel, VPLS & NVGRE

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: <20170822113207.GB773745@eidolon>
Date:   Tue, 22 Aug 2017 13:32:07 +0200
From:   David Lamparter <equinox@...c24.net>
To:     Nikolay Aleksandrov <nikolay@...ulusnetworks.com>
Cc:     Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>,
        David Lamparter <equinox@...c24.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        bridge@...ts.linux-foundation.org, amine.kherbouche@...nd.com,
        roopa@...ulusnetworks.com
Subject: Re: [RFC net-next v2] bridge lwtunnel, VPLS & NVGRE

On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 02:01:40PM +0300, Nikolay Aleksandrov wrote:
> On 22/08/17 03:01, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> > I know the bridge is an easy target to extend L2 forwarding, but it is not
> > the only option. Have you condidered building a new driver (like VXLAN does)
> > which does the forwarding you want. Having all features in one driver
> > makes for worse performance, and increased complexity.
> > 
> 
> +1
> 
> As I said before, a separate implementation will be much cleaner and will not affect
> the bridge in any way, paying both performance and complexity price for something that
> the majority of users will not be using isn't worth it.  In addition this creates a
> silent dependency between the bridge and the fdb metadata dst users, it would be much
> more preferable to be able to run them separately.
> If there is any code that will need to be re-used by VPLS (or anyone else) figure out a way
> to factor it out.

Could you tell me why this argument didn't apply to the bridge vlan
tunnel code?  It adds complexity to the bridge specifically for VXLAN
(and it does *not* transfer to VPLS or 802.11) and reduces performance

... by actually accessing the same metadata that this patchset does.


-David