netdev - Re: New xdpsock sample

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:   Tue, 26 Mar 2019 16:11:12 +0000
From:   Jonathan Lemon <bsd@...com>
To:     Maxim Mikityanskiy <maximmi@...lanox.com>
CC:     Magnus Karlsson <magnus.karlsson@...el.com>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Björn Töpel <bjorn.topel@...el.com>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        "Eran Ben Elisha" <eranbe@...lanox.com>,
        Tariq Toukan <tariqt@...lanox.com>,
        "Saeed Mahameed" <saeedm@...lanox.com>
Subject: Re: New xdpsock sample

The rationale (IIRC) was that it would be easier for new users to
get started using AF_XDP by providing everything that was needed
by default.

Passing in XSK_LIBBPF_FLAGS__INHIBIT_PROG to the library will
bypass loading the sample program, so a user application may still
use the library with their own bpf program.

I'll admit that the change likely makes it harder to simply modify
the sample program for other uses, but that's not really the point
of the samples.
-- 
Jonathan

On 26 Mar 2019, at 8:46, Maxim Mikityanskiy wrote:

> Hi Magnus and all,
>
> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/cover/1045921/
>
> This series removes xdpsock_kern.c and replaces it by the bytecode
> hardcoded in libbpf. I am wondering whether there is some real issue
> with having the XDP program in a separate C file, just like before,
> because this change made it far less convenient to modify the XDP
> program. Could you give any comments?
>
> Thanks,
> Max