netdev - Re: [PATCH RFC 1/3] xdp: Infrastructure to generalize XDP

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]

Message-ID: <20160920234347.GH3291@pox.localdomain>
Date:   Wed, 21 Sep 2016 01:43:47 +0200
From:   Thomas Graf <tgraf@...g.ch>
To:     Tom Herbert <tom@...bertland.com>
Cc:     "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Kernel Team <kernel-team@...com>,
        Tariq Toukan <tariqt@...lanox.com>,
        Brenden Blanco <bblanco@...mgrid.com>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>,
        Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
        Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 1/3] xdp: Infrastructure to generalize XDP

On 09/20/16 at 04:18pm, Tom Herbert wrote:
> This allows other use cases than BPF inserting code into the data
> path. This gives XDP potential more utility and more users so that we
> can motivate more driver implementations. For instance, I thinks it's
> totally reasonable if the nftables guys want to insert some of their
> rules to perform early DDOS drop to get the same performance that we
> see in XDP.

Reasonable point with nftables but are any of these users on the table
already and ready to consume non-skbs? It would be a pity to add this
complexity and cost if it is never used.

I don't see how we can ensure performance if we have multiple
subsystems register for the hook each adding their own parsers which
need to be passed through sequentially. Maybe I'm missing something.