* Universal tap device
@ 2013-02-16 14:01 Jiri Pirko
2013-02-16 16:46 ` Jan Engelhardt
2013-02-19 10:59 ` Jamal Hadi Salim
0 siblings, 2 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Jiri Pirko @ 2013-02-16 14:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: netdev; +Cc: arnd, ebiederm, stephen, eric.dumazet, davem
Hi all.
Looking at macvtap and thinking about the tap solutions in general, I
think it would be handly to have some universal tap device.
This could use rx_handler to hook onto any netdev and provide chardev
tap-like iface to it. Using that, one can just hook onto macvlan device
and macvtap would not be needed.
This would allow other scenarios like vxlan-tap, vlan-tap, bond-tap or
whatever.
Does this idea seem to be reasonable?
Thanks
Jiri
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread* Re: Universal tap device
2013-02-16 14:01 Universal tap device Jiri Pirko
@ 2013-02-16 16:46 ` Jan Engelhardt
2013-02-16 16:54 ` Jiri Pirko
2013-02-19 10:59 ` Jamal Hadi Salim
1 sibling, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: Jan Engelhardt @ 2013-02-16 16:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jiri Pirko; +Cc: netdev, arnd, ebiederm, stephen, eric.dumazet, davem
On Saturday 2013-02-16 15:01, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>Hi all.
>
>Looking at macvtap and thinking about the tap solutions in general,
>I think it would be handly to have some universal tap device.
As in, allowing tuntap to register as an rx_handler for arbitrary
devices?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: Universal tap device
2013-02-16 16:46 ` Jan Engelhardt
@ 2013-02-16 16:54 ` Jiri Pirko
2013-02-16 22:25 ` Arnd Bergmann
0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: Jiri Pirko @ 2013-02-16 16:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jan Engelhardt; +Cc: netdev, arnd, ebiederm, stephen, eric.dumazet, davem
Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 05:46:25PM CET, jengelh@inai.de wrote:
>On Saturday 2013-02-16 15:01, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>
>>Hi all.
>>
>>Looking at macvtap and thinking about the tap solutions in general,
>>I think it would be handly to have some universal tap device.
>
>As in, allowing tuntap to register as an rx_handler for arbitrary
>devices?
Essentially yes, but I was thinking without the actual netdev:
not eth0 -> tap0 -> chardev
but eth0 -> chardev
Not sure though if that is easily doable..
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: Universal tap device
2013-02-16 16:54 ` Jiri Pirko
@ 2013-02-16 22:25 ` Arnd Bergmann
2013-02-17 9:35 ` Jiri Pirko
0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: Arnd Bergmann @ 2013-02-16 22:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jiri Pirko; +Cc: Jan Engelhardt, netdev, ebiederm, stephen, eric.dumazet, davem
On Saturday 16 February 2013, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 05:46:25PM CET, jengelh@inai.de wrote:
> >On Saturday 2013-02-16 15:01, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> >
> >>Hi all.
> >>
> >>Looking at macvtap and thinking about the tap solutions in general,
> >>I think it would be handly to have some universal tap device.
> >
> >As in, allowing tuntap to register as an rx_handler for arbitrary
> >devices?
>
> Essentially yes, but I was thinking without the actual netdev:
> not eth0 -> tap0 -> chardev
> but eth0 -> chardev
>
> Not sure though if that is easily doable..
Isn't that the same as setting up macvtap in PASSTHRU mode?
Arnd
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: Universal tap device
2013-02-16 22:25 ` Arnd Bergmann
@ 2013-02-17 9:35 ` Jiri Pirko
2013-02-17 13:58 ` Arnd Bergmann
0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: Jiri Pirko @ 2013-02-17 9:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Arnd Bergmann
Cc: Jan Engelhardt, netdev, ebiederm, stephen, eric.dumazet, davem
Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 11:25:06PM CET, arnd@arndb.de wrote:
>On Saturday 16 February 2013, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>> Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 05:46:25PM CET, jengelh@inai.de wrote:
>> >On Saturday 2013-02-16 15:01, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>> >
>> >>Hi all.
>> >>
>> >>Looking at macvtap and thinking about the tap solutions in general,
>> >>I think it would be handly to have some universal tap device.
>> >
>> >As in, allowing tuntap to register as an rx_handler for arbitrary
>> >devices?
>>
>> Essentially yes, but I was thinking without the actual netdev:
>> not eth0 -> tap0 -> chardev
>> but eth0 -> chardev
>>
>> Not sure though if that is easily doable..
>
>Isn't that the same as setting up macvtap in PASSTHRU mode?
Yep, but without netdev instance. That brings some issues. Maybe the
netdev instance should be there. Not sure.
>
> Arnd
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: Universal tap device
2013-02-17 9:35 ` Jiri Pirko
@ 2013-02-17 13:58 ` Arnd Bergmann
0 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Arnd Bergmann @ 2013-02-17 13:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jiri Pirko; +Cc: Jan Engelhardt, netdev, ebiederm, stephen, eric.dumazet, davem
On Sunday 17 February 2013, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>
> Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 11:25:06PM CET, arnd@arndb.de wrote:
> >On Saturday 16 February 2013, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> >> Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 05:46:25PM CET, jengelh@inai.de wrote:
> >> >On Saturday 2013-02-16 15:01, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>Hi all.
> >> >>
> >> >>Looking at macvtap and thinking about the tap solutions in general,
> >> >>I think it would be handly to have some universal tap device.
> >> >
> >> >As in, allowing tuntap to register as an rx_handler for arbitrary
> >> >devices?
> >>
> >> Essentially yes, but I was thinking without the actual netdev:
> >> not eth0 -> tap0 -> chardev
> >> but eth0 -> chardev
> >>
> >> Not sure though if that is easily doable..
> >
> >Isn't that the same as setting up macvtap in PASSTHRU mode?
>
> Yep, but without netdev instance. That brings some issues. Maybe the
> netdev instance should be there. Not sure.
>
The idea of macvtap is at least that there should be no run-time
from using a separate netdev. Having the device is useful mostly
for configuration, especially with the non-passthrough modes
where you want to bind to a new mac address.
Arnd
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: Universal tap device
2013-02-16 14:01 Universal tap device Jiri Pirko
2013-02-16 16:46 ` Jan Engelhardt
@ 2013-02-19 10:59 ` Jamal Hadi Salim
1 sibling, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Jamal Hadi Salim @ 2013-02-19 10:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jiri Pirko; +Cc: netdev, arnd, ebiederm, stephen, eric.dumazet, davem
I dont know what macvtap is, but what dont you like about redirecting or
mirroring packets to tap? Or packet socket?
I think tap has become a christmas tree lately compared to its humble
beginnings, and its performance is questionable - but it should still
work for what you need.
cheers,
jamal
On 13-02-16 09:01 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> Hi all.
>
> Looking at macvtap and thinking about the tap solutions in general, I
> think it would be handly to have some universal tap device.
>
> This could use rx_handler to hook onto any netdev and provide chardev
> tap-like iface to it. Using that, one can just hook onto macvlan device
> and macvtap would not be needed.
>
> This would allow other scenarios like vxlan-tap, vlan-tap, bond-tap or
> whatever.
>
> Does this idea seem to be reasonable?
>
> Thanks
>
> Jiri
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2013-02-19 10:59 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2013-02-16 14:01 Universal tap device Jiri Pirko
2013-02-16 16:46 ` Jan Engelhardt
2013-02-16 16:54 ` Jiri Pirko
2013-02-16 22:25 ` Arnd Bergmann
2013-02-17 9:35 ` Jiri Pirko
2013-02-17 13:58 ` Arnd Bergmann
2013-02-19 10:59 ` Jamal Hadi Salim
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox