netdev - Re: [net-next PATCH v3 2/3] e1000: add initial XDP support

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, 13 Sep 2016 10:37:32 -0700
From:   Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To:     Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
Cc:     Tom Herbert <tom@...bertland.com>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
        Brenden Blanco <bblanco@...mgrid.com>,
        Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>,
        Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
        intel-wired-lan <intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org>,
        William Tu <u9012063@...il.com>,
        Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [net-next PATCH v3 2/3] e1000: add initial XDP support

On Tue, 2016-09-13 at 10:13 -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:

> I'm afraid the point 'only for debugging' still didn't make it across.
> xdp+e1k is for development (and debugging) of xdp-type of bpf
> programs and _not_ for debugging of xdp itself, kernel or anything else.
> The e1k provided interfaces and behavior needs to match exactly
> what real hw nics (like mlx4, mlx5, igxbe, i40e) will do.
> Doing special hacks are not acceptable. Therefore your
> 'proposed fix' misses the mark, since:
> 1. ignoring bql/qdisc is not a bug, but the requirement
> 2. such 'fix' goes against the goal above since behaviors will be
> different and xdp developer won't be able to build something like
> xdp loadbalancer in the kvm.
> 


Is e1k the only way a VM can receive and send packets ?

Instead of adding more cruft to a legacy driver, risking breaking real
old machines, I am sure we can find modern alternative.