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, 07 Jan 2020 12:25:47 +0100
From:   Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>
To:     Björn Töpel <bjorn.topel@...il.com>
Cc:     Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>,
        Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
        "Karlsson\, Magnus" <magnus.karlsson@...el.com>,
        Jonathan Lemon <jonathan.lemon@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 0/8] Simplify xdp_do_redirect_map()/xdp_do_flush_map() and XDP maps

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

> On Fri, 20 Dec 2019 at 11:30, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com> wrote:
>>
>> Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com> writes:
>>
> [...]
>> > I have now went over the entire patchset, and everything look perfect,
>> > I will go as far as saying it is brilliant.  We previously had the
>> > issue, that using different redirect maps in a BPF-prog would cause the
>> > bulking effect to be reduced, as map_to_flush cause previous map to get
>> > flushed. This is now solved :-)
>>
>> Another thing that occurred to me while thinking about this: Now that we
>> have a single flush list, is there any reason we couldn't move the
>> devmap xdp_bulk_queue into struct net_device? That way it could also be
>> used for the non-map variant of bpf_redirect()?
>>
>
> Indeed! (At least I don't see any blockers...)

Cool, that's what I thought. Maybe I'll give that a shot, then, unless
you beat me to it ;)

-Toke

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ