netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v5 4/5] net/smc: Dynamic control auto fallback by socket options

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: <9ba496e1-daf1-57d2-318e-bfcd4f57755c@linux.alibaba.com>
Date:   Wed, 9 Feb 2022 14:41:21 +0800
From:   "D. Wythe" <alibuda@...ux.alibaba.com>
To:     Karsten Graul <kgraul@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc:     kuba@...nel.org, davem@...emloft.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v5 4/5] net/smc: Dynamic control auto fallback by
 socket options


Some of our servers have different service types on different ports.
A global switch cannot control different service ports individually in 
this case。In fact, it has nothing to do with using netlink or not. 
Socket options is the first solution comes to my mind in that case，I 
don't know if there is any other better way。

Looks for you suggestions.
Thanks.


在 2022/2/9 上午1:08, Karsten Graul 写道:
> On 08/02/2022 13:53, D. Wythe wrote:
>> From: "D. Wythe" <alibuda@...ux.alibaba.com>
>>
>> This patch aims to add dynamic control for SMC auto fallback, since we
>> don't have socket option level for SMC yet, which requires we need to
>> implement it at the same time.
> 
> In your response to the v2 version of this series you wrote:
> 
>> After some trial and thought, I found that the scope of netlink control
>> is too large, we should limit the scope to socket. Adding a socket option
>> may be a better choice, what do you think?
> 
> I want to understand why this socket option is required, who needs it and why.
> What were your trials and thoughts, did you see any problems with the global
> switch via the netlink interface?