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  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, 14 Jan 2020 09:08:56 +0100
From:   Horatiu Vultur <horatiu.vultur@...rochip.com>
To:     Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
CC:     <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        <bridge@...ts.linux-foundation.org>, <davem@...emloft.net>,
        <roopa@...ulusnetworks.com>, <nikolay@...ulusnetworks.com>,
        <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>, <vivien.didelot@...il.com>,
        <olteanv@...il.com>, <anirudh.venkataramanan@...el.com>,
        <dsahern@...il.com>, <jiri@...nulli.us>, <ivecera@...hat.com>,
        <UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC net-next Patch v2 4/4] net: bridge: mrp: switchdev: Add HW
 offload

The 01/14/2020 00:30, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> 
> Hi Horatiu
> 
> It has been said a few times what the basic state machine should be in
> user space. A pure software solution can use raw sockets to send and
> receive MRP_Test test frames. When considering hardware acceleration,
> the switchdev API you have proposed here seems quite simple. It should
> not be too hard to map it to a set of netlink messages from userspace.

Yes and we will try to go with this approach, to have a user space
application that contains the state machines and then in the kernel to
extend the netlink messages to map to the switchdev API.
So we will create a new RFC once we will have the user space and the
definition of the netlink messages.

> 
> Yet your argument for kernel, not user space, is you are worried about
> the parameters which need to be passed to the hardware offload engine.
> In order to win the argument for a kernel solution, we are going to
> need a better idea what you think this problem is. The MRP_Test is TLV
> based. Are there other things which could be in this message? Is that
> what you are worried about?

> 
> Thanks
>      Andrew

-- 
/Horatiu

Powered by blists - more mailing lists