[Differential] D24989: netinet: Generate a random RSS key on boot.

[avg (Andriy Gapon)]

avg added a comment.


  In D24989#552693 , @neel_neelc.org 
wrote:
  
  > I believe Linux just uses random keys:
  >
  > - 
https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/29d9f30d4ce6c7a38745a54a8cddface10013490/net/ethtool/ioctl.c#L924
  
  You are right. So, my concern was invalid.

REPOSITORY
  rS FreeBSD src repository

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.freebsd.org/D24989/new/

REVISION DETAIL
  https://reviews.freebsd.org/D24989

EMAIL PREFERENCES
  https://reviews.freebsd.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/

To: neel_neelc.org, #csprng, markm
Cc: avg, markm, cem, #csprng, kevans, debdrup, rwatson, imp, ae, melifaro, 
#contributor_reviews_base, freebsd-net-list, mmacy, kpraveen.lkml_gmail.com, 
marcnarc_gmail.com, simonvella_gmail.com, novice_techie.com, 
tommi.pernila_iki.fi, krzysztof.galazka_intel.com
___
freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

[Differential] D24989: netinet: Generate a random RSS key on boot.

[avg (Andriy Gapon)]

avg added a comment.


  I have a vague memory, maybe wrong, that commonly used fixed RSS keys were 
selected because they had some property (-ies).
  So, maybe just being random is not good enough?
  I think that hypothetical `rss_isbadkey` was mentioned for a reason?

REPOSITORY
  rS FreeBSD src repository

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.freebsd.org/D24989/new/

REVISION DETAIL
  https://reviews.freebsd.org/D24989

EMAIL PREFERENCES
  https://reviews.freebsd.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/

To: neel_neelc.org, #csprng, markm
Cc: avg, markm, cem, #csprng, kevans, debdrup, rwatson, imp, ae, melifaro, 
#contributor_reviews_base, freebsd-net-list, mmacy, kpraveen.lkml_gmail.com, 
marcnarc_gmail.com, simonvella_gmail.com, novice_techie.com, 
tommi.pernila_iki.fi, krzysztof.galazka_intel.com
___
freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

[Differential] D10603: distinguish NFS versus TFTP boot by rootpath

[avg (Andriy Gapon)]

avg added a comment.


  My opinion is that pxeboot is in the same league as ipxe.  Of course, pxeboot 
is more specialized, but it is still a chain-loaded PXE boot client.
  I see two possibilities of providing FreeBSD specific boot information.
  Either we provide it via FreeBSD vendor extensions, so that we do not 
interfere with any earlier PXE boot programs (like ipxe or any other pxe loader 
in a NIC).
  Or a DHCP / PXE server should be configured to distinguish pxeboot by its 
telltale signs and give out a different set of PXE options.
  In my environment I implement the second approach.

REVISION DETAIL
  https://reviews.freebsd.org/D10603

EMAIL PREFERENCES
  https://reviews.freebsd.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/

To: kczekirda, oshogbo, tsoome, bapt, sbruno, freebsd-net-list, #network
Cc: avg, rgrimes
___
freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

[Differential] D10485: Replace dhcp option 150 by 66

[avg (Andriy Gapon)]

avg added a comment.


  I only recently looked into our pxeboot and it seems to be grossly non 
compliant with the PXE specification.
  And it probably needs to be because it acts as a PXE client.
  For starters, it does not support "Proxy DHCP" (a PXE server running 
separately from a DHCP server) at all.
  Format of option 60, vendor class identifier, is non compliant.
  Option 93, client system architecture, is not sent at all.  And the same goes 
for a few other mandatory options.
  
  Seems like pxeboot works only with very permissive servers.

REVISION DETAIL
  https://reviews.freebsd.org/D10485

EMAIL PREFERENCES
  https://reviews.freebsd.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/

To: kczekirda, bapt, oshogbo, tsoome, sbruno, #network, freebsd-net-list, imp, 
jhb
Cc: avg, rgrimes, garga, ler, asomers
___
freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

[Differential] [Commented On] D1881: Allow Illumos code to co-exist with nv(9)

[avg (Andriy Gapon)]

avg added a comment.

Another thought.

Or was the intention only to make nv(9) and hrm.. nvpair compatible only within 
the kernel? Section 9 seems like a big hint here, but I am not sure.
If the intention was such, then my previous comment is to inform that that 
change affected the userland as well.


REPOSITORY
  rS FreeBSD src repository

REVISION DETAIL
  https://reviews.freebsd.org/D1881

EMAIL PREFERENCES
  https://reviews.freebsd.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/

To: rstone, jfv, will
Cc: avg, will, emaste, pjd, freebsd-net
___
freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

[Differential] [Commented On] D1881: Allow Illumos code to co-exist with nv(9)

[avg (Andriy Gapon)]

avg added a subscriber: avg.
avg added a comment.

This has already been committed, so I've missed the train, but I still would 
like to comment. And I hope that my comment won't be just a rant.
So, I don't like this change for several reasons.

For one, given that nv(9) is a new thing while libnvpair already existed it 
would have been wise to select non-conflicting names for the new interfaces. 
And I think that it's still not too late to do that.
Then, it seems that this change has solved a theoretical problem as I don't 
think that currently there is any executable that links to both 
libraries.Perhaps I am wrong.
Also, libnvpair.so was treated like a "private" library: its ABI was wildly 
changed but its version hasn't been bumped.
Finally, from ABI point of view libnvpair now appears very inconsistent: many 
of its interfaces are prefixed with "illumos_" while quite a few don't have 
that prefix.

Now, why am I interested in libnvpair?
At work we have a Python module that interfaces libzfs_core and by necessity 
libnvpair through CFFI.
The module used to work perfectly well across FreeBSD, illumos and Linux 
because the library interfaces on ABI level are the same (from CFFI's point of 
view) across platforms.
After this change FreeBSD is an odd platform. I have to add a workaround to 
keep the module working. And even the workaround is not trivial because of the 
mix of prefixed and non-prefixed names.
Hope you sympathize.


REPOSITORY
  rS FreeBSD src repository

REVISION DETAIL
  https://reviews.freebsd.org/D1881

EMAIL PREFERENCES
  https://reviews.freebsd.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/

To: rstone, jfv, will
Cc: avg, will, emaste, pjd, freebsd-net
___
freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

[Differential] [Changed Subscribers] D1438: FreeBSD callout rewrite and cleanup

[avg (Andriy Gapon)]

avg added a subscriber: avg.

REVISION DETAIL
  https://reviews.freebsd.org/D1438

To: hselasky, jhb, adrian, markj, emaste, sbruno, imp, lstewart, rwatson, gnn, 
rrs, kostikbel, delphij, neel, erj, mat, remkolodder, bcr, brueffer, brd, 
allanjude, wblock
Cc: avg, jch, wblock, freebsd-net
___
freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"