Re: [ovs-dev] [iovisor-dev] [RFC PATCH 00/11] OVS eBPF datapath.

[Alexei Starovoitov]

On Sat, Jun 23, 2018 at 05:16:32AM -0700, William Tu wrote:
> 
> Discussion
> ==
> We are still actively working on finishing the feature, currently
> the basic forwarding and tunnel feature work, but still under
> heavy debugging and development.  The purpose of this RFC is to
> get some early feedbacks and direction for finishing the complete
> features in existing kernel's OVS datapath (the net/openvswitch/*).

Thank you for sharing the patches.

> Three major issues we are worried:
>   a. Megaflow support in BPF.
>   b. Connection Tracking support in BPF.

my opinion on the above two didn't change.
To recap:
A. Non scalable megaflow map is no go. I'd like to see packet classification
algorithm like hicuts or efficuts to be implemented instead, since it can be
shared by generic bpf, bpftiler, ovs and likely others.
B. instead of helpers to interface with conntrack the way ovs did, I prefer
a generic conntrack mechanism that can be used out of xdp too

>   c. Verifier limitation.

Not sure what limitations you're concerned about.

___
dev mailing list
d...@openvswitch.org
https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev

Re: [ovs-dev] [PATCH net-next] net: remove abuse of VLAN DEI/CFI bit

[Alexei Starovoitov]

On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 6:03 PM, Michał Mirosław
 wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 05:21:18PM -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
>> On Sat,  3 Dec 2016 10:22:28 +0100 (CET)
>> Michał Mirosław  wrote:
>> > This All-in-one patch removes abuse of VLAN CFI bit, so it can be passed
>> > intact through linux networking stack.
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Michał Mirosław 
>> > ---
>> >
>> > Dear NetDevs
>> >
>> > I guess this needs to be split to the prep..convert[]..finish sequence,
>> > but if you like it as is, then it's ready.
>> >
>> > The biggest question is if the modified interface and vlan_present
>> > is the way to go. This can be changed to use vlan_proto != 0 instead
>> > of an extra flag bit.
>> >
>> > As I can't test most of the driver changes, please look at them carefully.
>> > OVS and bridge eyes are especially welcome.
>> >
>> > Best Regards,
>> > Michał Mirosław
>> Is the motivation to support 802.1ad Drop Eligability Indicator (DEI)?
>>
>> If so then you need to be more verbose in the commit log, and lots more
>> work is needed. You need to rename fields and validate every place a
>> driver is using DEI bit to make sure it really does the right thing
>> on that hardware. It is not just a mechanical change.
>
> My main motivation is to be able to see the bit intact in tcpdump and be
> able to pass it untouched through at least a veth pair. It would be great
> if all devices didn't do something stupid with the bit, but it's not
> something I am able to make happen.

imo "be able to pass untouched through veth" is not good enough
justification for such invasive patches.
I'm still not sure that all of these changes don't affect user space.
___
dev mailing list
d...@openvswitch.org
https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev