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  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:   Wed, 15 Jan 2020 21:46:28 +0100
From:   Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
To:     David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>
Cc:     Jay Vosburgh <jay.vosburgh@...onical.com>,
        Leon Romanovsky <leonro@...lanox.com>,
        Maor Gottlieb <maorg@...lanox.com>,
        "vfalico@...il.com" <vfalico@...il.com>,
        "andy@...yhouse.net" <andy@...yhouse.net>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...lanox.com>,
        Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...lanox.com>,
        Jiri Pirko <jiri@...lanox.com>,
        Alex Rosenbaum <alexr@...lanox.com>,
        "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Mark Zhang <markz@...lanox.com>,
        Parav Pandit <parav@...lanox.com>
Subject: Re: Expose bond_xmit_hash function

Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 07:12:54PM CET, dsahern@...il.com wrote:
>On 1/15/20 11:04 AM, Jay Vosburgh wrote:
>> 
>>> Something similar is needed for xdp and not necessarily tied to a
>>> specific bond mode. Some time back I was using this as a prototype:
>>>
>>> https://github.com/dsahern/linux/commit/2714abc1e629613e3485b7aa860fa3096e273cb2
>>>
>>> It is incomplete, but shows the intent - exporting bond_egress_slave for
>>> use by other code to take a bond device and return an egress leg.
>> 
>> 	This seems much less awful, but would it make bonding a
>> dependency on pretty much everything?
>> 
>
>The intent is to hide the bond details beyond the general "a bond has
>multiple egress paths and we need to pick one". ie., all of the logic
>and data structures are still private.
>
>Exporting the function for use by modules is the easy part.
>
>Making it accessible to core code (XDP) means ??? Obviously not a
>concern when bond is built in but the usual case is a module. One
>solution is to repeat the IPv6 stub format; not great from an indirect
>call perspective. I have not followed the work on INDIRECT_CALL to know
>if that mitigates the concern about the stub when bond is a module.

Why it can't be an ndo as I previously suggested in this thread? It is
not specific to bond, others might like to fillup this ndo too (team,
ovs, bridge).

Powered by blists - more mailing lists