[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <7C42FC4B-D803-4194-8FBB-19A432D37124@yotsuba.nl>
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2024 14:53:23 +0100
From: Mark <mark@...suba.nl>
To: Ratheesh Kannoth <rkannoth@...vell.com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Breno Leitao <leitao@...ian.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] netpoll: support sending over raw IP interfaces
Hi Ratheesh,
> Op 13 mrt 6 Reiwa, om 14:36 heeft Ratheesh Kannoth <rkannoth@...vell.com> het volgende geschreven:
>
> On 2024-03-13 at 18:16:13, Mark Cilissen (mark@...suba.nl) wrote:
>> […]
> Taking an assumption based on dev’s lower layer does not look to be good.
> why not transmit packet from skb_network_header() in your driver (by making
> changes in your driver)
There’s two assumptions at play here:
- The lower layer is ethernet: this has always been present in netpoll, and is even
documented in netconsole.rst. This comment just mentions it because we add a way
to bypass the assumption; it is not an assumption this patch adds to the code.
- hard_header_len==0 means that there is no exposed link layer: this is a rather
conservative assumption in my opinion, and is also mentioned in the definition
of LL_RESERVED_SPACE:
> * Alternative is:
> * dev->hard_header_len ? (dev->hard_header_len +
> * (HH_DATA_MOD - 1)) & ~(HH_DATA_MOD - 1) : 0
The same assumption is also made in more places in the core network code, like af_packet:
> - If the device has no dev->header_ops->create, there is no LL header
> visible above the device. In this case, its hard_header_len should be 0.
> The device may prepend its own header internally. In this case, its
> needed_headroom should be set to the space needed for it to add its
> internal header.
I could change it to, like af_packet, check `dev->header_ops` instead if that is preferred,
but I don’t think that patching every single raw IP driver to deal with skbs that managed
to somehow have link layer data would be preferred here, especially since netpoll is kind
of a special case to begin with. I am open to suggestions and ideas, though.
> […]
Thanks and regards,
Mark
Powered by blists - more mailing lists