netdev - Re: [PATCH xfrm-next v3 0/6] Extend XFRM core to allow full offload configuration

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: <Yw5KtJ+vOoi+qSM6@nvidia.com>
Date:   Tue, 30 Aug 2022 14:36:52 -0300
From:   Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc:     Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>,
        Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        Raed Salem <raeds@...dia.com>,
        Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH xfrm-next v3 0/6] Extend XFRM core to allow full offload
 configuration

On Fri, Aug 26, 2022 at 04:45:22PM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:

> > # Add TC rules
> > tc filter add dev $PF0 parent ffff: protocol 802.1q chain 0 flower vlan_id 10 vlan_ethtype 802.1q cvlan_id 5 action vlan pop action vlan pop  action mirred egress redirect dev $VF0_REP
> > tc filter add dev $VF0_REP parent ffff: protocol all chain 0 flower action vlan push protocol 802.1q id 5 action vlan push protocol 802.1q id 10 action mirred egress redirect dev $PF0
> > tc filter show dev $PF0 ingress
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 
> > We also don't offload anything related to routing as we can't
> > differentiate between local traffic.
> 
> Yeah, nah, that's not what I'm asking for.
> I said forwarding, not sending traffic thru a different virtual
> interface. The TC rules must forward from or two the IPSec ifc.
> 
> That was the use case Jason mentioned.

I was meaning rather generically handling the packets in the
hypervisor side without involving the CPU. 

We have customers deploying many different models for this in their
hypervisor, including a significant deployment using a model like the
above. 

It achieves a kind of connectivity to a VM with 0 hypervisor CPU
involvement with the vlan push/pop done in HW.

We other use-models, like the offloaded OVS switching model you are
alluding to, that is Leon has as a followup.

Jason