netdev - Re: [PATCH v3 net-next 1/4] bpf: xdp: Allow head adjustment in XDP prog

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20161207.120413.939362482173997833.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:   Wed, 07 Dec 2016 12:04:13 -0500 (EST)
From:   David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:     alexei.starovoitov@...il.com
Cc:     kubakici@...pl, daniel@...earbox.net, kafai@...com,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, ast@...com, bblanco@...mgrid.com,
        brouer@...hat.com, john.fastabend@...il.com, saeedm@...lanox.com,
        tariqt@...lanox.com, kernel-team@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 net-next 1/4] bpf: xdp: Allow head adjustment in XDP
 prog

From: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2016 08:37:58 -0800

> On Wed, Dec 07, 2016 at 11:41:12AM +0000, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
>> > I see nothing wrong if this is exposed/made visible in the usual way through
>> > ethtool -k as well. I guess at least that would be the expected way to query
>> > for such driver capabilities.
>> 
>> +1 on exposing this to user space.  Whether via ethtool -k or a
>> separate XDP-specific netlink message is mostly a question of whether
>> we expect the need to expose more complex capabilities than bits.
> 
> I'm very much against using NETIF_F_ flags and exposing this to user space.
> I see this xdp feature flag as temporary workaround until all drivers
> support adjust_head() helper. It is very much a fundamental feature for xdp.
> Without being able to add/remove headers the usability of xdp becomes very limited.
> 
> If you guys dont like extra ndo_xdp command, I'd suggest to do
> "if (prog->xdp_adjust_head)" check in the driver and if driver doesn't
> support it yet, just fail XDP_SETUP_PROG command.
> imo that will be more flexible interface, since in the future drivers
> can fail on different combination of features and simple boolean flag
> unlikely to serve us for long time.

Indeed, if the eventual plan is to have all drivers be required to
support a fundamental set of XDP features then exporting this in any
way to userspace is not a good idea.