netdev - Re: [PATCH RFC v3 0/8] 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: <20170221172939.432b9c9b@cakuba.netronome.com>
Date:   Tue, 21 Feb 2017 17:29:39 -0800
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kubakici@...pl>
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>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v3 0/8] xdp: Infrastructure to generalize XDP

On Tue, 21 Feb 2017 16:25:15 -0800, Tom Herbert wrote:
> >>   - Provides a more structured environment that is extensible to new
> >>     features while being mostly transparent to the drivers  
> >
> > So far all features we added required explicit driver support.
> > Checksumming support as an example will require driver changes, too.
> > Generalized way to call programs is probably not going to buy us much?
> >  
> Hi Jakub,
> 
> What is the the concern with checksumming? Isn't that just an issue of
> defining fields in xdp_data and driver populating with the appropriate
> information?

Thanks for replying!  I was just using checksumming as an example.  I
was trying to counter the argument that the hook infrastructure will
allow for features to be implemented mostly transparently to the
drivers.  I may be wrong but it seems that it doesn't buy us anything
as far as the features which were so far discussed go.