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]

Date:   Tue, 21 Feb 2017 20:02:07 -0800
From:   Tom Herbert <tom@...bertland.com>
To:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:     Jakub Kicinski <kubakici@...pl>,
        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, Feb 21, 2017 at 7:34 PM, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote:
> From: Tom Herbert <tom@...bertland.com>
> Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2017 18:54:53 -0800
>
>> It is part of the direction to take XDP beyond the first use case of
>> BPF and leverage the high performance processing model in a much
>> broader context.
>
> And I've stated repeatedly that it's too early to be looking
> that far into the future.
>
> Look Tom, if all you want to do is create infrastructure so that
> you can very easily slither XDP for modules in somewhere, please
> just stop now.  Right now I am completely not interested in even
> entertaining patches which facilitate that.
>
> If instead, you are genuinely interested in making the process of
> writing XDP support for drivers easier, that extremely useful right
> now so please just stick to that specific focus.
>
> I really see no other use case for the XDP hook abstraction other
> than to support XDP module support, which I've said is in no way
> proven to be necessary.
>
> We don't even know what eBPF XDP itself is fully capable of yet,
> so please stop reaching like this.
>

I took out the parts about allowing non-BPF hooks in the patchset as
you requested.I believe code that is cleaner than what is currently
there, and the fact that the API is extensible to allow other uses is
a hallmark of good design.

Tom