netdev - Re: [PATCH v2 bpf 0/5] New netdev feature flags for 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: <20201204112259.7f769952@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.DHCP.thefacebook.com>
Date:   Fri, 4 Dec 2020 11:22:59 -0800
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>
Cc:     alardam@...il.com, magnus.karlsson@...el.com,
        bjorn.topel@...el.com, andrii.nakryiko@...il.com, ast@...nel.org,
        daniel@...earbox.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net,
        john.fastabend@...il.com, hawk@...nel.org,
        maciej.fijalkowski@...el.com, jonathan.lemon@...il.com,
        bpf@...r.kernel.org, jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com,
        maciejromanfijalkowski@...il.com, intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org,
        Marek Majtyka <marekx.majtyka@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 bpf 0/5] New netdev feature flags for XDP

On Fri, 04 Dec 2020 18:26:10 +0100 Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
> Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org> writes:
> 
> > On Fri,  4 Dec 2020 11:28:56 +0100 alardam@...il.com wrote:  
> >>  * Extend ethtool netlink interface in order to get access to the XDP
> >>    bitmap (XDP_PROPERTIES_GET). [Toke]  
> >
> > That's a good direction, but I don't see why XDP caps belong in ethtool
> > at all? We use rtnetlink to manage the progs...  
> 
> You normally use ethtool to get all the other features a device support,
> don't you?

Not really, please take a look at all the IFLA attributes. There's 
a bunch of capabilities there.

> And for XDP you even use it to configure the number of TXQs.
> 
> I mean, it could be an rtnetlink interface as well, of course, but I
> don't think it's completely weird if this goes into ethtool...