netdev - Re: [PATCH v2 net-next RFC] Generic 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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <20170410213325.GD4730@C02RW35GFVH8.dhcp.broadcom.net>
Date:   Mon, 10 Apr 2017 17:33:25 -0400
From:   Andy Gospodarek <andy@...yhouse.net>
To:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, xdp-newbies@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 net-next RFC] Generic XDP

On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 03:34:56PM -0400, David Miller wrote:
> From: Andy Gospodarek <andy@...yhouse.net>
> Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 14:39:35 -0400
> 
> > I also noted that...
> > 
> > xdp1 not parsing the protocol correctly.   All traffic was showing up as
> > protocol '0' instead of '17' in the output.  
> > 
> > xdp2 was not actually sending the frames back out when using this patch.
> > 
> > I'll take a look in a bit and see if I can track these two issues down.
> 
> Read Alexei's earlier posting, he spotted the bugs you are seeing
> here.
> 
> Basically, the MAC header is pulled already so we have to push it back
> before we run XDP over it.  We also have to be similarly careful with
> the MAC header for XDP_TX cases.

Yep, I saw those emails.  I just didn't want to be accused of not running all
the tests.  :-D