netdev - Re: error loading xdp program on virtio nic

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1fc9364a-ab96-e085-1fc5-9ed29f43f815@gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 22 Nov 2019 10:42:53 -0700
From:   David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>
To:     Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>
Cc:     Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>,
        "xdp-newbies@...r.kernel.org" <xdp-newbies@...r.kernel.org>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: error loading xdp program on virtio nic

On 11/22/19 9:57 AM, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
> Implementation wise, I would not add flags to xdp_buff / xdp_md.
> Instead I propose in[1] slide 46, that the verifier should detect the
> XDP features used by a BPF-prog.  If you XDP prog doesn't use e.g.
> XDP_TX, then you should be allowed to run it on a virtio_net device
> with less queue configured, right?

Thanks for the reference and yes, that is the goal: allow XDP in the
most use cases possible. e.g., Why limit XDP_DROP which requires no
resources because XDP_TX does not work?

I agree a flag in the api is an ugly way to allow it. For the verifier
approach, you mean add an internal flag (e.g., bitmask of return codes)
that the program uses and the NIC driver can check at attach time?