netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v6 3/3] openvswitch: enable NSH support

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: <87vakxsaj2.fsf@stressinduktion.org>
Date:   Tue, 05 Sep 2017 12:30:09 +0200
From:   Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>
To:     "Yang\, Yi" <yi.y.yang@...el.com>
Cc:     "netdev\@vger.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "dev\@openvswitch.org" <dev@...nvswitch.org>,
        "jbenc\@redhat.com" <jbenc@...hat.com>, "e\@erig.me" <e@...g.me>,
        "blp\@ovn.org" <blp@....org>,
        "jan.scheurich\@ericsson.com" <jan.scheurich@...csson.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v6 3/3] openvswitch: enable NSH support

"Yang, Yi" <yi.y.yang@...el.com> writes:

> I'm not sure what new action you expect to bring here, I think group
> action is just for this, as you said it isn't only bound to NSH, you can
> start a new thread to discuss this. I don't think it is in scope of NSH.

It is in scope of this discussion as you will provide a user space API
that makes the NSH context fields accessible from user space in a
certain way. If you commit to this, there is no way going back.

I haven't yet grasped the idea on how those fields will be used in OVS
besides load balancing. Even for load balancing the tunnel itself
(vxlan-gpe + UDP source port or ipv6 flowlabel) already provides enough
entropy to do per-flow load balancing. What else is needed?  Why a
context header for that? You just need multiple action chains and pick
one randomly.

The only protocol that I can compare that to is geneve with TLVs, but
the TLVs are global and uniquie and a property of the networking
forwarding backplane and not a property of the path inside a tenant. So
I expect this actually to be the first case where I think that matters.

Why are context labels that special that they are not part of tun_ops?

Thanks,
Hannes