netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf-next v3 0/5] net: xdp: refactor XDP program queries

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, 11 Jun 2019 14:17:08 +0200
From:   Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>
To:     Björn Töpel <bjorn.topel@...el.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>,
        Björn Töpel <bjorn.topel@...il.com>
Cc:     ast@...nel.org, daniel@...earbox.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        magnus.karlsson@...el.com, brouer@...hat.com, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
        saeedm@...lanox.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v3 0/5] net: xdp: refactor XDP program queries

Björn Töpel <bjorn.topel@...el.com> writes:

> On 2019-06-11 00:24, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
>> On Mon, 10 Jun 2019 18:02:29 +0200, Björn Töpel wrote:
>>> Jakub, what's your thoughts on the special handling of XDP offloading?
>>> Maybe it's just overkill? Just allocate space for the offloaded
>>> program regardless support or not? Also, please review the
>>> dev_xdp_support_offload() addition into the nfp code.
>> 
>> I'm not a huge fan of the new approach - it adds a conditional move,
>> dereference and a cache line reference to the fast path :(
>> 
>> I think it'd be fine to allocate entries for all 3 types, but the
>> potential of slowing down DRV may not be a good thing in a refactoring
>> series.
>> 
>
> Note, that currently it's "only" the XDP_SKB path that's affected, but
> yeah, I agree with out. And going forward, I'd like to use the netdev
> xdp_prog from the Intel drivers, instead of spreading/caching it all over.
>
> I'll go back to the drawing board. Any suggestions on a how/where the
> program should be stored in the netdev are welcome! :-) ...or maybe just
> simply store the netdev_xdp flat (w/o the additional allocation step) in
> net_device. Three programs and the boolean (remove the num_progs).

This seems reasonable to me (and thanks for keeping at this!).

-Toke