netdev - Re: Shepherd request (P83): Multipath TCP: Present Use Cases and an Upstream Future

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]

Date:   Tue, 22 May 2018 17:36:14 +0200
From:   Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
To:     "Samudrala, Sridhar" <sridhar.samudrala@...el.com>
Cc:     mst@...hat.com, stephen@...workplumber.org, davem@...emloft.net,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
        virtio-dev@...ts.oasis-open.org, jesse.brandeburg@...el.com,
        alexander.h.duyck@...el.com, kubakici@...pl, jasowang@...hat.com,
        loseweigh@...il.com, aaron.f.brown@...el.com,
        anjali.singhai@...el.com
Subject: Re: Shepherd request (P83): Multipath TCP: Present Use Cases and an
 Upstream Future

Tue, May 22, 2018 at 05:28:42PM CEST, sridhar.samudrala@...el.com wrote:
>
>On 5/22/2018 2:08 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>> Tue, May 22, 2018 at 11:06:37AM CEST, jiri@...nulli.us wrote:
>> > Tue, May 22, 2018 at 04:06:18AM CEST, sridhar.samudrala@...el.com wrote:
>> > > Use the registration/notification framework supported by the generic
>> > > failover infrastructure.
>> > > 
>> > > Signed-off-by: Sridhar Samudrala <sridhar.samudrala@...el.com>
>> > In previous patchset versions, the common code did
>> > netdev_rx_handler_register() and netdev_upper_dev_link() etc
>> > (netvsc_vf_join()). Now, this is still done in netvsc. Why?
>> > 
>> > This should be part of the common "failover" code.
>
>Based on Stephen's feedback on earlier patches, i tried to minimize the changes to
>netvsc and only commonize the notifier and the main event handler routine.
>Another complication is that netvsc does part of registration in a delayed workqueue.

:( This kind of degrades the whole efford of having single solution
in "failover" module. I think that common parts, as
netdev_rx_handler_register() and others certainly is should be inside
the common module. This is not a good time to minimize changes. Let's do
the thing properly and fix the netvsc mess now.


>
>It should be possible to move some of the code from net_failover.c to generic
>failover.c in future if Stephen is ok with it.
>
>
>> > 
>> Also note that in the current patchset you use IFF_FAILOVER flag for
>> master, yet for the slave you use IFF_SLAVE. That is wrong.
>> IFF_FAILOVER_SLAVE should be used.
>
>Not sure which code you are referring to.  I only set IFF_FAILOVER_SLAVE
>in patch 3.

The existing netvsc driver.