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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2020 13:58:20 -0700 From: David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com> To: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us> 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 On 1/15/20 1:46 PM, Jiri Pirko wrote: > 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). > Sure, that is an option to try. I can not remember if I explored that option previously; too much time has passed.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists