Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 06:39:27PM CET, nhorman@tuxdriver.com wrote:

On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 07:07:35PM -0400, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote:

quoted

On 03/22/14 05:48, Jiri Pirko wrote:

quoted

Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 01:04:20PM CET, jhs@mojatatu.com wrote:

quoted

Hmm. This got me thinking about netdev and switches well and perhaps the
switchdev api could be mostly implemented by couple of more ndos and
feature flags. That way we could stick to your immortal netdev :)

Perhaps ;->

quoted

quoted

In my view: that (immortal) device for L2/bridging is the bridge or
maybe a more barebone version of the bridge (since it has gained a
little more weight in recent times).

Well, I do not think that bridge is ideal abstraction for modern switch
chips. Bridge is very limited.

True - but i was more thinking of being inclusive of the smaller
devices. They are mostly L2 only and in very limited scope. And thats
probably 95% of the population. The things you are talking about
are very high end and they can do more. Florian's taxanomy was useful.

quoted

But I don't necessary think it is needed to "mask" as a bride or mimic a
bridge in any way. DSA does not do that either.

No, but it would be really nice if these smaller devices could take advantage of
this infrastructure.  Looking at it, I don't see why thats not possible.  The
big trick (as we've discussed in the past), is using a net_device structure to
take advantage of all the features that net_devices offer while not enabling the
device specific features that some hardware doesn't allow.

For instance the broadcom chips that live in many wireless routers would be well
served by the model jiri has here as far as Media level interface control is
concerned (i.e. ifup/down/speed/duplex/etc), but its a bit lacking in that
net_devices are assumed to support L3 protocol configuration (i.e. they can have
ip addresses assigned to them), which you can't IIRC do on these chips.

Would it be worth considering a private interface model?  That is to say:

I'm personaly strongly againts this. All netdevices should stay under net
namespace list. If you break this, I expect many unexpected issues.
+ There is not really a reason for this breakage.

1) Ports on a switch chip are accessed using net_device structures, but
registered to a private list contained within the switch device, rather than to
the net namespaces device list.

2) Access to the switch ports via user space is done through the master switch
interface with additional netlink attributes specifying the port on the switch
to access (or not to access the master switch device directly)


Such a model I think might fit well with Jiri's code here and provide greater
flexibility for a wider range of devices.  It would of course require
augmentation for user space, but the changes would be additive, so I think they
would be reasonable.  This would also allow the switch device to have a hook in
the control path to block or allow features that the hardware may or may not
support while still being able to use the existing net_device infrastructure to
support these operations as they are normally carried out.

Best
Neil