netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 0/3] support changing steering policies in tuntap

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: <CAF=yD-J8hERZdwq8FJ2rtnCnZ2b7s=CAVLtPk4CS7e=RQH3sLQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 27 Sep 2017 19:25:37 -0400
From:   Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>
To:     "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
Cc:     Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>,
        Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 0/3] support changing steering policies in tuntap

>> In the future, both simple and sophisticated policy like RSS or other guest
>> driven steering policies could be done on top.
>
> IMHO there should be a more practical example before adding all this
> indirection. And it would be nice to understand why this queue selection
> needs to be tun specific.

I was thinking the same and this reminds me of the various strategies
implemented in packet fanout. tun_cpu_select_queue is analogous to
fanout_demux_cpu though it is tun-specific in that it requires tun->numqueues.

Fanout accrued various strategies until it gained an eBPF variant. Just
supporting BPF is probably sufficient here, too.