netdev - Re: [RFC net-next 6/9] net: dsa: Forward offloading

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 linux-cve-announce 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]

Message-ID: <YJGvkJBKPj2WloXf@lunn.ch>
Date:   Tue, 4 May 2021 22:33:20 +0200
From:   Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To:     Tobias Waldekranz <tobias@...dekranz.com>
Cc:     Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>, davem@...emloft.net,
        kuba@...nel.org, vivien.didelot@...il.com, f.fainelli@...il.com,
        roopa@...dia.com, nikolay@...dia.com, jiri@...nulli.us,
        idosch@...sch.org, stephen@...workplumber.org,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, bridge@...ts.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [RFC net-next 6/9] net: dsa: Forward offloading

> There is really no need to recompute the static parts of the tags on
> each skb. It would mean moving some knowledge of the tagging format to
> the driver. But that boundary is pretty artificial for
> mv88e6xxx. tag_dsa has no use outside of mv88e6xxx, and mv88e6xxx does
> not work with any other tagger. I suppose you could even move the whole
> tagger to drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/?
> 
> What do you think?
> 
> Andrew?

We have resisted this before.

What information do you actually need to share between the tagger and
the driver? Both tag_lan9303.c and tag_ocelot_8021q.c do reference
their switch driver data structures, so some sharing is allowed. But
please try to keep the surface areas down.

       Andrew