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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <DM6PR12MB42021C6149409933958BE777C1AF9@DM6PR12MB4202.namprd12.prod.outlook.com> Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2023 12:05:14 +0000 From: "Lucero Palau, Alejandro" <alejandro.lucero-palau@....com> To: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>, "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org> Subject: devink dpipe implementation Hi, I'm looking at the devlink dpipe functionality for considering using it with AMD ef100. There is just one driver using it, Mellanox spectrum switch, as a reference apart from the devlink core code. I wonder if due to this limited usage the implementation is not covering other needs or maybe I'm missing something. For example: enum devlink_dpipe_match_type { DEVLINK_DPIPE_MATCH_TYPE_FIELD_EXACT, }; It seems obvious other matches should be supported, at least for supporting matching based on masks. Is this because spectrum switch does only have BCAMs? Other examples: enum devlink_dpipe_field_ethernet_id { DEVLINK_DPIPE_FIELD_ETHERNET_DST_MAC, }; enum devlink_dpipe_field_ipv4_id { DEVLINK_DPIPE_FIELD_IPV4_DST_IP, }; Again, I guess other fields should be support. If this is because only that needed by the only driver using it was added, I guess using dpipe for ef100 would need to add more support to the devlink dpipe core. Can someone clarify this to me? Thanks.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists