netdev - Re: [PATCH 0/8] Introduce fwctl subystem

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]

Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2024 15:34:48 +0200
From: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
To: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
Cc: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>,
	Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>,
	Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
	Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, Itay Avraham <itayavr@...dia.com>,
	Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...dia.com>,
	Tariq Toukan <tariqt@...dia.com>,
	Andy Gospodarek <andrew.gospodarek@...adcom.com>,
	Aron Silverton <aron.silverton@...cle.com>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>, Jiri Pirko <jiri@...dia.com>,
	Leonid Bloch <lbloch@...dia.com>,
	Leon Romanovsky <leonro@...dia.com>, linux-cxl@...r.kernel.org,
	patches@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/8] Introduce fwctl subystem

Fri, Jun 07, 2024 at 02:49:19PM CEST, andrew@...n.ch wrote:
>> >This API gives user space SDKs a trivial way of implementing all
>> >switching, routing, filtering, QoS offloads etc.
>> >An argument can be made that given somewhat mixed switchdev experience
>> 
>> Can you elaborabe a bit more what you mean by "mixed switchdev
>> experience" please?
>
>I don't want to put words in Jakubs mouth but, in my opinion,
>switchdev has been great for SoHo switches. We have over 100
>supported, mostly implemented by the community, but some vendors also
>supporting their own hardware.
>
>We have two enterprise switch families supported, each by its own
>vendor. And we have one TOR switch family supported by the vendor.
>
>So i would say switchdev has worked out great for SoHo, but kernel
>bypass is still the norm for most things bigger than SoHo.
>
>Why? My guess is, the products with a SoHo switch is not actually a
>switch. It is a wifi box, with a switch. It is a cable modem, with a
>switch. It is an inflight entertainment system, with a switch, etc.
>It is much easier to build such multi-purpose systems when everything
>is nicely integrated into the kernel, you don't have to fight with
>multiple vendors supplying SDKs which only work on a disjoint set of
>kernels, etc.
>
>For bigger, single purpose devices, it is just a switch, there is less
>inconvenience of using just one vendor SDK, on top of the vendor
>proscribed kernel.

I'm aware of what you wrote and undertand it. I just thought Jakub's
mixed experience is about the APIs more than the politics behind vedors
adoptation process..


>
>	Andrew
>