netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH v2 00/14] Introducing AF

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: <CAJ+HfNiW68iqsatZms6UgJuTGVN7FfZOyBhWiVXn-KTKXfsLBw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 12 Apr 2018 16:14:49 +0200
From:   Björn Töpel <bjorn.topel@...il.com>
To:     Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...com>
Cc:     William Tu <u9012063@...il.com>,
        "Karlsson, Magnus" <magnus.karlsson@...el.com>,
        Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@...el.com>,
        Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@...il.com>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
        Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>,
        Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Björn Töpel <bjorn.topel@...el.com>,
        michael.lundkvist@...csson.com,
        "Brandeburg, Jesse" <jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>,
        Anjali Singhai Jain <anjali.singhai@...el.com>,
        "Zhang, Qi Z" <qi.z.zhang@...el.com>, ravineet.singh@...csson.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 00/14] Introducing AF_XDP support

2018-04-11 20:43 GMT+02:00 Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...com>:
> On 4/11/18 5:17 AM, Björn Töpel wrote:
>>
>>
>> In the current RFC you are required to create both an Rx and Tx
>> queue to bind the socket, which is just weird for your "Rx on one
>> device, Tx to another" scenario. I'll fix that in the next RFC.
>
> I would defer on adding new features until the key functionality
> lands.  imo it's in good shape and I would submit it without RFC tag
> as soon as net-next reopens.

Yes, makes sense. We're doing some ptr_ring-like vs head/tail
measurements, and depending on the result we'll send out a proper
patch when net-next is open again.

What tree should we target -- bpf-next or net-next?


Thanks!
Björn