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:   Thu, 16 Jan 2020 08:00:51 -0800
From:   Jay Vosburgh <>
To:     Maor Gottlieb <>
cc:     Andy Gospodarek <>,
        Jiri Pirko <>,
        "" <>,
        "" <>,
        Saeed Mahameed <>,
        Jason Gunthorpe <>,
        Leon Romanovsky <>,
        Jiri Pirko <>,
        Alex Rosenbaum <>,
        "" <>,
        Mark Zhang <>,
        Parav Pandit <>
Subject: Re: Expose bond_xmit_hash function

Maor Gottlieb <> wrote:

>On 1/16/2020 4:42 PM, Andy Gospodarek wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 03:15:35PM +0100, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>>> Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 02:04:49PM CET, wrote:
>>>> On 1/15/2020 11:45 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>>>>> Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 09:01:43AM CET, wrote:
>>>>>> RDMA over Converged Ethernet (RoCE) is a standard protocol which enables
>>>>>> RDMA’s efficient data transfer over Ethernet networks allowing transport
>>>>>> offload with hardware RDMA engine implementation.
>>>>>> The RoCE v2 protocol exists on top of either the UDP/IPv4 or the
>>>>>> UDP/IPv6 protocol:
>>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> | L2 | L3 | UDP |IB BTH | Payload| ICRC | FCS |
>>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> When a bond LAG netdev is in use, we would like to have the same hash
>>>>>> result for RoCE packets as any other UDP packets, for this purpose we
>>>>>> need to expose the bond_xmit_hash function to external modules.
>>>>>> If no objection, I will push a patch that export this symbol.
>>>>> I don't think it is good idea to do it. It is an internal bond function.
>>>>> it even accepts "struct bonding *bond". Do you plan to push netdev
>>>>> struct as an arg instead? What about team? What about OVS bonding?
>>>> No, I am planning to pass the bond struct as an arg. Currently, team
>>> Hmm, that would be ofcourse wrong, as it is internal bonding driver
>>> structure.
>>>> bonding is not supported in RoCE LAG and I don't see how OVS is related.
>>> Should work for all. OVS is related in a sense that you can do bonding
>>> there too.
>>>>> Also, you don't really need a hash, you need a slave that is going to be
>>>>> used for a packet xmit.
>>>>> I think this could work in a generic way:
>>>>> struct net_device *master_xmit_slave_get(struct net_device *master_dev,
>>>>> 					 struct sk_buff *skb);
>>>> The suggestion is to put this function in the bond driver and call it
>>>> instead of bond_xmit_hash? is it still necessary if I have the bond pointer?
>>> No. This should be in a generic code. No direct calls down to bonding
>>> driver please. Or do you want to load bonding module every time your
>>> module loads?
>>> I thinks this can be implemented with ndo with "master_xmit_slave_get()"
>>> as a wrapper. Masters that support this would just implement the ndo.
>> In general I think this is a good idea (though maybe not with an skb as
>> an arg so we can use it easily within BPF), but I'm not sure if solves
>> the problem that Maor et al were setting out to solve.
>> Maor, if you did export bond_xmit_hash() to be used by another driver,
>> you would presumably have a check in place so if the RoCE and UDP
>> packets had a different hash function output you would make a change and
>> be sure that the UDP frames would go out on the same device that the
>> RoCE traffic would normally use.  Is this correct?  Would you also send
>> the frames directly on the interface using dev_queue_xmit() and bypass
>> the bonding driver completely?
>RoCE packets are UDP. The idea is that the same UDP header (RoCE as 
>well) will get the same hash result so they will be transmitted from the 
>same port.
>The frames will be sent by using the RDMA send API and bypass the 
>bonding driver completely.
>Is it answer your question?

	If the RDMA send bypasses bonding, how will you insure that the
same hash result maps to the same underlying interface for both bonding
and RDMA?


>> I don't think I fundamentally have a problem with this, I just want to
>> make sure I understand your proposed code-flow.
>> Thanks!

	-Jay Vosburgh,

Powered by blists - more mailing lists