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:   Mon, 17 Dec 2018 18:36:00 -0800
From:   Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>
To:     Björn Töpel <bjorn.topel@...el.com>
Cc:     Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>,
        Björn Töpel 
        <bjorn.topel@...il.com>, magnus.karlsson@...el.com,
        magnus.karlsson@...il.com, ast@...nel.org, daniel@...earbox.net,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, u9012063@...il.com, qi.z.zhang@...el.com,
        andrew@...n.ch
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 0/7] Add support for XDP_ATTACH

On Mon, 17 Dec 2018 14:39:57 +0100, Björn Töpel wrote:
> OTOH the implementation would probably look different if there was a
> per-q program, because this would open up for more optimizations. One
> could even imagine that the socket fd was part of the program (part of
> relocation process) when loading the program. That could get rid of yet
> another if-statement that check for socket existence. :-)

Interesting thought, then we would have to teach the BPF subsystem to
express program dependencies (this program can only be used on queue
where given XSK is attached), and have the networking subsystem
(drivers?) check those constraints when attaching. Did I get this right?

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ