netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v2 0/3] VGT+ support

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: <20191107102425.GC2200@nanopsycho>
Date:   Thu, 7 Nov 2019 11:24:25 +0100
From:   Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
To:     Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...lanox.com>
Cc:     "jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com" <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>,
        "sbrivio@...hat.com" <sbrivio@...hat.com>,
        "nikolay@...ulusnetworks.com" <nikolay@...ulusnetworks.com>,
        "dsahern@...il.com" <dsahern@...il.com>,
        "sd@...asysnail.net" <sd@...asysnail.net>,
        Jiri Pirko <jiri@...lanox.com>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "stephen@...workplumber.org" <stephen@...workplumber.org>,
        Ariel Levkovich <lariel@...lanox.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 0/3] VGT+ support

Wed, Nov 06, 2019 at 11:21:37PM CET, saeedm@...lanox.com wrote:
>On Tue, 2019-11-05 at 17:38 -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
>> On Tue, 5 Nov 2019 23:48:15 +0000, Saeed Mahameed wrote:
>> > On Tue, 2019-11-05 at 15:10 -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
>> > > But switchdev _is_ _here_. _Today_. From uAPI perspective it's
>> > > done,
>> > > and ready. We're missing the driver and user space parts, but no
>> > > core
>> > > and uAPI extensions. It's just L2 switching and there's quite a
>> > > few
>> > > switch drivers upstream, as I'm sure you know :/ 
>> > 
>> > I can say the same about netlink, it also was there, the missing
>> > part
>> > was the netlink ethtool connection and userspace parts .. 
>> 
>> uAPI is the part that matters. No driver implements all the APIs. 
>> I'm telling you that the API for what you're trying to configure
>> already exists, and your driver should use it. Driver's technical 
>> debt is not my concern.
>> 
>> > Just because switchdev uAPI is powerful enough to do anything it
>> > doesn't mean we are ready, you said it, user space and drivers are
>> > not
>> > ready, and frankly it is not on the road map, 
>> 
>> I bet it's not on the road map. Product marketing sees only legacy
>> SR-IOV (table stakes) and OvS offload == switchdev (value add). 
>> L2 switchdev will never be implemented with that mind set.
>> 
>> In the upstream community, however, we care about the technical
>> aspects.
>> 
>> > and we all know that it could take years before we can sit back and
>> > relax that we got our L2 switching .. 
>> 
>> Let's not be dramatic. It shouldn't take years to implement basic L2
>> switching offload.
>> 
>> > Just like what is happening now with ethtool, it been years you
>> > know..
>> 
>> Exactly my point!!! Nobody is going to lift a finger unless there is
>> a
>> loud and resounding "no".
>> 
>
>Ok then, "no" new uAPI, although i still think there should be some
>special cases to be allowed, but ... your call.
>
>In the meanwhile i will figure out something to be driver only as

"something to be driver only". I'm curious what do you mean by that...


>intermediate solution until we have full l2 offload, then i can ask
>every one to move to full switchdev mode with a press of a button.
>