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  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:   Thu, 17 May 2018 07:57:56 +0200
From:   Jesper Dangaard Brouer <>
To:     Björn Töpel <>
        Björn Töpel <>,,,,,,
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH bpf-next 05/12] xdp: add MEM_TYPE_ZERO_COPY

On Tue, 15 May 2018 21:06:08 +0200
Björn Töpel <> wrote:

> @@ -82,6 +88,10 @@ struct xdp_frame *convert_to_xdp_frame(struct xdp_buff *xdp)
>  	int metasize;
>  	int headroom;
> +	// XXX implement clone, copy, use "native" MEM_TYPE
> +	if (xdp->rxq->mem.type == MEM_TYPE_ZERO_COPY)
> +		return NULL;
> +

There is going to be significant tradeoffs between AF_XDP zero-copy and
copy-variant.  The copy-variant, still have very attractive
RX-performance, and other benefits like no exposing unrelated packets
to userspace (but limit these to the XDP filter).

Thus, as a user I would like to choose between AF_XDP zero-copy and
copy-variant. Even if my NIC support zero-copy, I can be interested in
only enabling the copy-variant. This patchset doesn't let me choose.

How do we expose this to userspace?
(Maybe as simple as an sockaddr_xdp->sxdp_flags flag?)

Best regards,
  Jesper Dangaard Brouer
  MSc.CS, Principal Kernel Engineer at Red Hat

Powered by blists - more mailing lists