netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v16 00/15] Introducing P4TC (series 1)

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: Tue, 11 Jun 2024 11:53:28 -0400
From: Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, deb.chatterjee@...el.com, anjali.singhai@...el.com, 
	namrata.limaye@...el.com, tom@...anda.io, mleitner@...hat.com, 
	Mahesh.Shirshyad@....com, tomasz.osinski@...el.com, jiri@...nulli.us, 
	xiyou.wangcong@...il.com, davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com, 
	pabeni@...hat.com, vladbu@...dia.com, horms@...nel.org, khalidm@...dia.com, 
	toke@...hat.com, victor@...atatu.com, pctammela@...atatu.com, 
	Vipin.Jain@....com, dan.daly@...el.com, andy.fingerhut@...il.com, 
	chris.sommers@...sight.com, mattyk@...dia.com, bpf@...r.kernel.org, 
	Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, Oz Shlomo <ozsh@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v16 00/15] Introducing P4TC (series 1)

On Tue, Jun 11, 2024 at 11:33 AM Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 11 Jun 2024 11:10:35 -0400 Jamal Hadi Salim wrote:
> > > Before the tin foil hats gather - we have no use for any of this at
> > > Meta, I'm not trying to twist the design to fit the use cases of big
> > > bad hyperscalers.
> >
> > The scope is much bigger than just parsers though, it is about P4 in
> > which the parser is but one object.
>
> For me it's very much not "about P4". I don't care what DSL user prefers
> and whether the device the offloads targets is built by a P4 vendor.
>

I think it is an important detail though.
You wouldnt say PSP shouldnt start small by first taking care of TLS
or IPSec because it is not the target.

> > Limiting what we can do just to fit a narrow definition of "offload"
> > is not the right direction.
>
> This is how Linux development works. You implement small, useful slice
> which helps the overall project. Then you implement the next, and
> another.
>
> On the technical level, putting the code into devlink rather than TC
> does not impose any meaningful limitations. But I really don't want
> you to lift and shift the entire pile of code at once.
>

Yes, the binary blob is going via devlink or some other scheme.

> > P4 is well understood, hardware exists for P4 and is used to specify
> > hardware specs and is deployed(See Vipin's comment).
>
> "Hardware exists for P4" is about as meaningful as "hardware exists
> for C++".

We'll have to agree to disagree. Take a look at this for example.
https://www.servethehome.com/pensando-distributed-services-architecture-smartnic/

cheers,
jamal