[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2018 18:20:47 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>
To: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
Cc: "Waskiewicz Jr, Peter" <peter.waskiewicz.jr@...el.com>,
"Duyck, Alexander H" <alexander.h.duyck@...el.com>,
"daniel@...earbox.net" <daniel@...earbox.net>,
"saeedm@...lanox.com" <saeedm@...lanox.com>,
"brouer@...hat.com" <brouer@...hat.com>,
"borkmann@...earbox.net" <borkmann@...earbox.net>,
"tariqt@...lanox.com" <tariqt@...lanox.com>,
"john.fastabend@...il.com" <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"saeedm@....mellanox.co.il" <saeedm@....mellanox.co.il>
Subject: Re: [RFC bpf-next 2/6] net: xdp: RX meta data infrastructure
On Fri, 6 Jul 2018 18:00:13 -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 06, 2018 at 05:40:43PM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> >
> > Could we just say that at the start we expose only existing SKB fields
> > (csum, hash, mark) and the meaning of the is the same as in the SKB?
>
> what would be the meaning of 'hash' ? Over which fields?
> Does it support inner and outer packets? How about udp encap (vxlan and friends) ?
We don't seem to need to answer that for the rest of the stack, no? We
can expose the "hash type" field as well if that's *really* necessary.
> Same question of csum... tcp only?
Shouldn't we just stick to CHECKSUM_COMPLETE?
> how about crc for sctp?
That's harder to answer. Can cls_bpf access such info?
> What is 'mark' ?
Same thing it would be on an skb. Most likely set with an offloaded TC
rule?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists