netdev - Re: [PATCH RFC v2 net-next 00/21] net/ipv6: Separate data structures for FIB and data path

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]

Date:   Sun, 25 Mar 2018 09:09:53 -0600
From:   David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>
To:     Ido Schimmel <idosch@...sch.org>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net,
        roopa@...ulusnetworks.com, eric.dumazet@...il.com,
        weiwan@...gle.com, kafai@...com, yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v2 net-next 00/21] net/ipv6: Separate data structures
 for FIB and data path

On 3/24/18 9:59 AM, Ido Schimmel wrote:
>> As you know, my preference is to move to nexthop objects (makes fib6_nh
>> optional). I have IPv4 done; IPv6 requires this patch set. 
> 
> After going over your presentation [1] I was under the impression that
> the fib6_info will be optional, not fib6_nh: "Idea is similar to adding
> id to fib_info that is exposed to userspace. Subsequent routes pass id
> to avoid fib_info overhead".

Just using that as an analogy to explain the idea in terms of something
that already exists.

> 
> But I think misunderstood you. You want to introduce the nexthop API
> that will allow you to have multiple fib6_info pointing to the same
> fib6_nh?
> 
> 1. http://vger.kernel.org/netconf2017_files/nexthop-objects.pdf
> 

I see nexthop specs as device, gateway, lwtunnel_state and flags. That's
the basic building block. A nexthop group is multiple nexthops where
each nexthop in the group as its own weight.

The fib_info struct has more than that -- data unrelated to a netxthop
and is really a next level struct.