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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <1491928088.10587.63.camel@edumazet-glaptop3.roam.corp.google.com>
Date:   Tue, 11 Apr 2017 09:28:08 -0700
From:   Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
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 Sun, 2017-04-09 at 13:35 -0700, David Miller wrote:
> This provides a generic non-optimized XDP implementation when the
> device driver does not provide an optimized one.
> 
> It is arguable that perhaps I should have required something like
> this as part of the initial XDP feature merge.
> 
> I believe this is critical for two reasons:
> 
> 1) Accessibility.  More people can play with XDP with less
>    dependencies.  Yes I know we have XDP support in virtio_net, but
>    that just creates another depedency for learning how to use this
>    facility.
> 
>    I wrote this to make life easier for the XDP newbies.
> 
> 2) As a model for what the expected semantics are.  If there is a pure
>    generic core implementation, it serves as a semantic example for
>    driver folks adding XDP support.
> 

Nice !

It seems that this implementation is not vlan aware ?

It seems that some native XDP implementations are not vlan aware as
well.

Probably need to disable VLAN acceleration when/if XDP is used.