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  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, 29 Dec 2020 19:09:41 +0100
From:   Lorenzo Bianconi <>
To:     Daniel Borkmann <>
Cc:     Lorenzo Bianconi <>,
        BPF-dev-list <>,
        Network Development <>,
        "David S. Miller" <>,
        Jakub Kicinski <>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <>,
        Jesper Brouer <>,
        Alexander Duyck <>,
        Maciej Fijalkowski <>,
        Saeed Mahameed <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 bpf-next 2/2] net: xdp: introduce xdp_prepare_buff
 utility routine

> > +                     hard_start = page_address(rx_buffer->page) +
> > +                                  rx_buffer->page_offset - offset;
> > +                     xdp_prepare_buff(&xdp, hard_start, offset, size, true);
> >   #if (PAGE_SIZE > 4096)
> >                       /* At larger PAGE_SIZE, frame_sz depend on len size */
> >                       xdp.frame_sz = ixgbevf_rx_frame_truesize(rx_ring, size);

Hi Daniel,

thx for the review.

> [...]
> The design is very similar for most of the Intel drivers. Why the inconsistency on
> ice driver compared to the rest, what's the rationale there to do it in one but not
> the others? Generated code better there?

I applied the same logic for the ice driver but the code is just
slightly different.

> Couldn't you even move the 'unsigned int offset = xyz_rx_offset(rx_ring)' out of the
> while loop altogether for all of them? (You already use the xyz_rx_offset() implicitly
> for most of them when setting xdp.frame_sz.)

We discussed moving "offset = xyz_rx_offset(rx_ring)" out of the while
loop before but Saeed asked to address it in a dedicated series since
it is a little bit out of the scope. I have no strong opinion on it,
do you prefer to address it directly here?


> Thanks,
> Daniel

Powered by blists - more mailing lists