netdev - Re: [bpf-next V2 PATCH 10/15] xdp: rhashtable with allocator ID to pointer mapping

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:   Fri, 16 Mar 2018 16:45:30 +0800
From:   Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>
To:     Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        BjörnTöpel <bjorn.topel@...el.com>,
        magnus.karlsson@...el.com, eugenia@...lanox.com,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
        Eran Ben Elisha <eranbe@...lanox.com>,
        Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...lanox.com>, galp@...lanox.com,
        Daniel Borkmann <borkmann@...earbox.net>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>,
        Tariq Toukan <tariqt@...lanox.com>
Subject: Re: [bpf-next V2 PATCH 10/15] xdp: rhashtable with allocator ID to
 pointer mapping



On 2018年03月10日 00:07, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Mar 2018 21:07:36 +0800
> Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com> wrote:
>
>>>>> Use the IDA infrastructure for getting a cyclic increasing ID number,
>>>>> that is used for keeping track of each registered allocator per
>>>>> RX-queue xdp_rxq_info.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Jesper Dangaard Brouer<brouer@...hat.com>
>>>> A stupid question is, can we manage to unify this ID with NAPI id?
>>> Sorry I don't understand the question?
>> I mean can we associate page poll pointer to napi_struct, record NAPI id
>> in xdp_mem_info and do lookup through NAPI id?
> No. The driver can unreg/reg a new XDP memory model,

Is there an actual use case for this?

>   without reloading
> the NAPI and generate a new NAPI id.
>

We could still do this by e.g a allocator pointer protected by RCU I think?

Thanks