netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH 01/14] packet: introduce AF

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:   Wed, 15 Nov 2017 14:21:38 -0800
From:   chet l <loke.chetan@...il.com>
To:     Björn Töpel <bjorn.topel@...il.com>
Cc:     Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>,
        "Karlsson, Magnus" <magnus.karlsson@...el.com>,
        Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@...el.com>,
        Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@...il.com>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...com>,
        Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>,
        michael.lundkvist@...csson.com, ravineet.singh@...csson.com,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Björn Töpel <bjorn.topel@...el.com>,
        jesse.brandeburg@...el.com, anjali.singhai@...el.com,
        rami.rosen@...el.com, jeffrey.b.shaw@...el.com,
        ferruh.yigit@...el.com, qi.z.zhang@...el.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 01/14] packet: introduce AF_PACKET V4 userspace API

>
> Actually, we started out with that approach, where the packet_mmap
> call mapped Tx/Rx descriptor rings and the packet buffer region. We
> later moved to this (register umem) approach, because it's more
> flexible for user space, not having to use a AF_PACKET specific
> allocator (i.e. continue to use regular mallocs, huge pages and such).
>


One quick question:
Any thoughts on SVM support?
Is SVM support going to be so disruptive that we will need to churn a tp_v5?

If not then to accommodate future SVM enablement do you think it might
make sense to add/stuff a control-info union in the tp4_queue (or umem
etc). And then in the future, I think setmemreg (or something else)
would need to pass the PASID in addition to the malloc'd addr.
Assumption here is that the user-app will bind PID<->PASID before
invoking the AF_ZC setup.



> Björn

Chetan