netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 0/7] nfp: extend match and action for flower offload

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: <CALx6S34Akd2Z3TDaEKwG3-1BwSZ79bO4kweuLojw=00cg0t=Nw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 9 Oct 2017 08:45:41 -0700
From:   Tom Herbert <tom@...bertland.com>
To:     Simon Horman <simon.horman@...ronome.com>
Cc:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>,
        Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        oss-drivers@...ronome.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 0/7] nfp: extend match and action for flower offload

On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 1:05 AM, Simon Horman <simon.horman@...ronome.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 06, 2017 at 08:34:59AM -0700, Tom Herbert wrote:
>> Simon,
>>
>> Maybe a bit off topic, but I had the impression netronome would
>> support BPF so that filters could be programmed for arbitrary
>> protocols and fields. Is that true? If so, what is the relationship
>> between that functionality and these patches?
>
> Hi Tom,
>
> you are correct in thinking that Netronome is supporting BPF offload
> in its nfp driver. That support continues to be enhanced and supported.
>
> This patch-set relates to a different set of functionality, offload of the
> TC flower classifier. At this point there is no relationship between the
> two sets of functionality and they cannot be used at the same time;
> different firmware images are required and the driver initiates itself
> according to the firmware loaded.
>
> In future it may be possible to use both BPF and TC flower offloads at the
> same time but that is not the case at this time.
>
> Does that answer your question?

Yes... A couple of follow up questions. If someone uses tc-bpf would
that be offloaded to nfp? Is there anything that TC flower offloads
can do that the BPF solution can't do?

Thanks,
Tom