[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190223114343.5813f18a@carbon>
Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2019 11:43:43 +0100
From: Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>
To: Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>
Cc: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>, brouer@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/2] xdp: Always use a devmap for XDP_REDIRECT
to a device
On Fri, 22 Feb 2019 13:37:34 -0800 Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Feb 2019 11:13:50 +0100, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
> > Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com> writes:
> > > On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 12:56:54 +0100, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
[...]
> > >
> > > BPF programs don't obey by netns boundaries. The fact the program is
> > > verified in one ns doesn't mean this is the only ns it will be used in :(
> > > Meaning if any program is using the redirect map you may need a secret
> > > map in every ns.. no?
> >
> > Ah, yes, good point. Totally didn't think about the fact that load and
> > attach are decoupled. Hmm, guess I'll just have to move the call to
> > alloc_default_map() to the point where the program is attached to an
> > interface, then...
>
> Possibly.. and you also need to handle the case where interface with a
> program attached is moved, no?
True, we need to handle if e.g. a veth gets an XDP program attached and
then is moved into a network namespace (as I've already explained to
Toke in a meeting).
I'm still not sure how to handle this...
--
Best regards,
Jesper Dangaard Brouer
MSc.CS, Principal Kernel Engineer at Red Hat
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/brouer
Powered by blists - more mailing lists