netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf-next 0/2] libbpf: adding 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: <20181210161049.7b66cc86@cakuba.netronome.com>
Date:   Mon, 10 Dec 2018 16:10:49 -0800
From:   Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>
To:     Magnus Karlsson <magnus.karlsson@...el.com>
Cc:     bjorn.topel@...el.com, ast@...nel.org, daniel@...earbox.net,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, bjorn.topel@...il.com,
        qi.z.zhang@...el.com, brouer@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 0/2] libbpf: adding af_xdp support

On Mon, 10 Dec 2018 16:34:43 +0100, Magnus Karlsson wrote:
> * Is it ok to have static inline functions in this library? They are
>   currently static inline for performance reasons, but maybe -flto
>   could fix this but not everyone uses this.

I'd think so, we have few static inlines in kernel uapi headers.
 
> * I have included 3 more header files compared to libbpf without AF_XDP
>   functionality: barrier.h (for the memory barriers used for correctly
>   ordered accesses to the rings) compiler.h (for one unliekly and one
>   likely with a tiny performance impact, if any) and list.h (some
>   extra functions). What to do with these (and the header files they
>   include) as they need to be dual licensed for libbpf.so?

Indeed, but I think we already have that problem, we include barrier.h
indirectly for the perf ring helper which in turn includes compiler.h
and list.h is included directly.

Thanks for the work!