netdev - Re: [oss-drivers] 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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20171009160218.GF14096@netronome.com>
Date:   Mon, 9 Oct 2017 18:02:19 +0200
From:   Simon Horman <simon.horman@...ronome.com>
To:     Tom Herbert <tom@...bertland.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: [oss-drivers] Re: [PATCH net-next 0/7] nfp: extend match and
 action for flower offload

On Mon, Oct 09, 2017 at 08:45:41AM -0700, Tom Herbert wrote:
> 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?

I believe that the NFP driver also offloads tc-bpf.
Jakub can correct me if I am wrong.

I would expect that in general one can write BPF programs to
offload use-cases cases covered by the TC flower offloads.