netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf-next v3 00/16] AF_XDP infrastructure improvements and mlx5e support

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: <20190524105828.665facc0@cakuba.netronome.com>
Date:   Fri, 24 May 2019 10:58:28 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>
To:     Björn Töpel <bjorn.topel@...el.com>
Cc:     Maxim Mikityanskiy <maximmi@...lanox.com>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Magnus Karlsson <magnus.karlsson@...el.com>,
        "bpf@...r.kernel.org" <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...lanox.com>,
        Jonathan Lemon <bsd@...com>,
        Tariq Toukan <tariqt@...lanox.com>,
        Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>,
        Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
        Maciej Fijalkowski <maciejromanfijalkowski@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v3 00/16] AF_XDP infrastructure improvements
 and mlx5e support

On Fri, 24 May 2019 12:18:32 +0200, Björn Töpel wrote:
> Maxim, this doesn't address the uapi concern we had on your v2.
> Please refer to Magnus' comment here [1].
> 
> Please educate me why you cannot publish AF_XDP without the uapi change?
> It's an extension, right? If so, then existing XDP/AF_XDP program can
> use Mellanox ZC without your addition? It's great that Mellanox has a ZC
> capable driver, but the uapi change is a NAK.
> 
> To reiterate; We'd like to get the queue setup/steering for AF_XDP
> correct. I, and Magnus, dislike this approach. It requires a more
> complicated XDP program, and is hard for regular users to understand.

+1