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, 8 Sep 2020 13:35:09 +0200
From:   "Allan W. Nielsen" <>
To:     Henrik Bjoernlund - M31679 <>
CC:     Nikolay Aleksandrov <>,
        "" <>,
        Horatiu Vultur - M31836 <>,
        "" <>,
        "" <>,
        "" <>,
        "" <>,
        Roopa Prabhu <>,
        "" <>,
        "" <>,
        UNGLinuxDriver <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 0/7] net: bridge: cfm: Add support for Connectivity
 Fault Management(CFM)


On 08.09.2020 11:04, Henrik Bjoernlund - M31679 wrote:
>>On Sun, 2020-09-06 at 20:21 +0200, Horatiu Vultur wrote:
>>> The 09/04/2020 15:44, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
>>> > On Fri, 4 Sep 2020 09:15:20 +0000 Henrik Bjoernlund
>>> > <> wrote:
>>Hi, I also had the same initial thought - this really doesn't seem to
>>affect the bridge in any way, it's only collecting and transmitting
>>information. I get that you'd like to use the bridge as a passthrough
>>device to switchdev to program your hw, could you share what would be
>>offloaded more specifically ?
>The HW will offload the periodic sending of CCM frames, and the
>If CCM frames are not received as expected, it will raise an interrupt.
>This means that all the functionality provided in this series will be
>offloaded to HW.
>The offloading is very important on our HW where we have a small CPU,
>serving many ports, with a high frequency of CFM frames.
>The HW also support Link-Trace and Loop-back, which we may come back to
>>All you do - snooping and blocking these packets can easily be done
>>from user- space with the help of ebtables, but since we need to have
>>a software implementation/fallback of anything being offloaded via
>>switchdev we might need this after all, I'd just prefer to push as
>>much as possible to user-space.
In addition to Henriks comment, it is worth mentioning that we are
trying to push as much of the functionallity to user-space (learnings
from the MRP discussions).

This is why there are currently no in-kernel users of the CCM-lose
singnal. When a CCM-defect is happening the network typically needs to
be re-configured. This we are trying to keep in user-space.

>>I plan to review the individual patches tomorrow.


Powered by blists - more mailing lists