netdev - Re: [PATCH RFC net-next] virtio_net: Relax queue requirement for using XDP

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: <87tv3dxqtv.fsf@toke.dk>
Date:   Wed, 26 Feb 2020 17:21:00 +0100
From:   Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>
To:     David Ahern <dahern@...italocean.com>,
        "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
Cc:     David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>, Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>,
        David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        davem@...emloft.net, kuba@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC net-next] virtio_net: Relax queue requirement for using XDP

David Ahern <dahern@...italocean.com> writes:

> On 2/26/20 1:34 AM, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
>>>
>>> OK so basically there would be commands to configure which TX queue is
>>> used by XDP. With enough resources default is to use dedicated queues.
>>> With not enough resources default is to fail binding xdp program
>>> unless queues are specified. Does this sound reasonable?
>> 
>> Yeah, that was the idea. See this talk from LPC last year for more
>> details: https://linuxplumbersconf.org/event/4/contributions/462/
>
>  Hopefully such a design is only required for a program doing a Tx path
> (XDP_TX or XDP_REDIRECT). i.e., a program just doing basic ACL, NAT, or
> even encap, decap, should not have to do anything with Tx queues to load
> and run the program.

No but they may want to configure RX queues (for CPU affinity, etc).
Ideally we'd want both (TX and RX) to be configurable through the same
interface.

-Toke