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: <20230502164336.1e8974af@kernel.org> Date: Tue, 2 May 2023 16:43:36 -0700 From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org> To: Shannon Nelson <shannon.nelson@....com> Cc: <brett.creeley@....com>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <drivers@...sando.io> Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC net-next 0/2] pds_core: add switchdev and tc for vlan offload On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 09:45:44 -0700 Shannon Nelson wrote: > This is an RFC for adding to the pds_core driver some very simple support > for VF representors and a tc command for offloading VF port vlans. > > The problem to solve is how to request that a NIC do the push/pop of port > vlans on a VF. The initial pds_core patchset[0] included this support > through the legacy ip-link methods with a PF netdev that had no datapath, > simply existing to enable commands such as > ip link set <pf> vf <vfid> vlan <vid> > This was soundly squashed with a request to create proper VF representors. > The pds_core driver has since been reworked and merged without this feature. Have you read the representors documentation? Passing traffic is crucial. > This pair of patches is a first attempt at adding support for a simple > VF representor and tc offload which I've been tinkering with off and > on over the last few weeks. I will acknowledge that we have no proper > filtering offload language in our firmware's adminq interface yet. > This has been mentioned internally and is a "future project" with no > actual schedule yet. Given that, I have worked here with what I have, > using the existing vf_setattr function. > > An alternative that later occured to me is to make this a "devlink port > function" thing, similar to the existing port mac. This would have the > benefit of using a familiar concept from and similar single command as > the legacy method, would allow early port setup as with setting the mac > and other port features, and would not need to create a lot of mostly > empty netdevs for the VF representors. I don't know if this would then > lead to adding "trust" and "spoofcheck" as well, but I'm not aware of any > other solutions for them, either. This also might make more sense for > devices that don't end up as user network interfaces, such as a virtio > block device that runs over ethernet on the back end. I don't have RFC > code for this idea, but thought I would toss it out for discussion - > I didn't see any previous related discussion in a (rather quick) search. No, no -- the problem is not rtnetlink vs devlink but the fact that the old API was inventing its own parallel way of configuring forwarding outside of normal/SW netdev concepts.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists