netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf-next 1/2] net: xdp: refactor XDP_QUERY_PROG{,

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: <CAJ+HfNjFPmRuESHE0MYqQ9UUnV+szPK4du4DugUuzQJRVYWtew@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 28 May 2019 19:06:21 +0200
From:   Björn Töpel <bjorn.topel@...il.com>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>
Cc:     Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Björn Töpel <bjorn.topel@...el.com>,
        "Karlsson, Magnus" <magnus.karlsson@...el.com>,
        Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>,
        bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 1/2] net: xdp: refactor XDP_QUERY_PROG{,_HW} to netdev

On Wed, 22 May 2019 at 20:32, Jakub Kicinski
<jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com> wrote:
>
[...]
>
> You should be able to just call install with the original flags, and
> install handler should do the right maths again to direct it either to
> drv or generic, no?
>

On a related note: I ran the test_offload.py test (thanks for pointing
that out!), and realized that my view of load flags was incorrect. To
double-check:

Given an XDP DRV capable netdev "eth0".

# ip link set dev eth0 xdp obj foo.o sec .text
# ip link set dev eth0 xdpdrv off

and

# ip link set dev eth0 xdpdrv obj foo.o sec .text
# ip link set dev eth0 xdp off

and

# ip link set dev eth0 xdpdrv obj foo.o sec .text
# ip link -force set dev eth0 xdp obj foo.o sec .text

and

# ip link set dev eth0 xdp obj foo.o sec .text
# ip link -force set dev eth0 xdpdrv obj foo.o sec .text

Should all fail. IOW, there's a distinction between explicit DRV and
auto-detected DRV? It's considered to be different flags.

Correct?

This was *not* my view. :-)


Thanks,
Björn