netdev - Re: XDP offload to hypervisor

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: <20170124053207-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
Date:   Tue, 24 Jan 2017 05:33:37 +0200
From:   "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
To:     Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
Cc:     John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>, jasowang@...hat.com,
        john.r.fastabend@...el.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        daniel@...earbox.net
Subject: Re: XDP offload to hypervisor

On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 05:02:02PM -0800, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> Frankly I don't understand the whole virtio nit picking that was happening.
> imo virtio+xdp by itself is only useful for debugging, development and testing
> of xdp programs in a VM. The discussion about performance of virtio+xdp
> will only be meaningful when corresponding host part is done.
> Likely in the form of vhost extensions and may be driver changes.
> Trying to optimize virtio+xdp when host is doing traditional skb+vhost
> isn't going to be impactful.

Well if packets can be dropped without a host/guest
transition then yes, that will have an impact even
with traditional skbs.

-- 
MST