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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Thu, 16 May 2019 15:36:52 +0800
From:   Jason Wang <>
To:     Stephen Hemminger <>
Cc:,,,, Stephen Hemminger <>
Subject: Re: [RFC 1/2] netvsc: invoke xdp_generic from VF frame handler

On 2019/5/15 下午11:23, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> On Wed, 15 May 2019 16:12:42 +0800
> Jason Wang <> wrote:
>> On 2019/5/15 下午4:03, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
>>> XDP generic does not work correctly with the Hyper-V/Azure netvsc
>>> device because of packet processing order. Only packets on the
>>> synthetic path get seen by the XDP program. The VF device packets
>>> are not seen.
>>> By the time the packets that arrive on the VF are handled by
>>> netvsc after the first pass of XDP generic (on the VF) has already
>>> been done.
>>> A fix for the netvsc device is to do this in the VF packet handler.
>>> by directly calling do_xdp_generic() if XDP program is present
>>> on the parent device.
>>> A riskier but maybe better alternative would be to do this netdev core
>>> code after the receive handler is invoked (if RX_HANDLER_ANOTHER
>>> is returned).
>> Something like what I propose at
>> ?
>> It belongs to a series that try to make XDP (both native and generic)
>> work for stacked device. But for some reason (probably performance), the
>> maintainer seems not like the idea.
>> Maybe it's time to reconsider that?
>> Thanks
> I like your generic solution but it introduces a change in semantics.
> Netvsc always changes device when returning a ANOTHER but do all devices?
> If some other stacked device did this then there a chance that using
> XDP on that device would see same packet twice.

Good point.  Can we simply add a check and call XDP only if dev is 
changed in this case?


Powered by blists - more mailing lists