netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH net-next 12/15] ipv4: Add "in hardware" indication to routes

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: <0ba448e3-3c27-d440-ee16-55f778b57bb1@gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 4 Oct 2019 10:38:03 -0600
From:   David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>
To:     Ido Schimmel <idosch@...sch.org>, roopa@...ulusnetworks.com
Cc:     Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>, netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jiri Pirko <jiri@...lanox.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>,
        Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...lanox.com>,
        mlxsw <mlxsw@...lanox.com>, Ido Schimmel <idosch@...lanox.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH net-next 12/15] ipv4: Add "in hardware" indication to
 routes

On 10/4/19 8:43 AM, Ido Schimmel wrote:
>> Sounds like there are 2 cases for prefixes that should be flagged to the
>> user -- "offloaded" (as in traffic is offloaded) and  "in_hw" (prefix is
>> in hardware but forwarding is not offloaded).
> Sounds good. Are you and Roopa OK with the below?
> 
> RTM_F_IN_HW - route is in hardware
> RTM_F_OFFLOAD - route is offloaded
> 
> For example, host routes will have the first flag set, whereas prefix
> routes will have both flags set.

if "offload" always includes "in_hw", then are both needed? ie., why not
document that offload means in hardware with offloaded traffic, and then
"in_hw" is a lesser meaning - only in hardware with a trap to CPU?

> 
> Together with the existing offload flags for nexthops and neighbours
> this provides great visibility into the entire offload process.