netdev - devink dpipe implementation

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

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.