netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 0/2] Introduce XDP_FLAGS_NO

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <2e591053-05f4-4dc2-81bc-4d3320b75930@www.fastmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 12 Jan 2021 15:38:36 +1100
From:   "Charlie Somerville" <charlie@...rlie.bz>
To:     "Jason Wang" <jasowang@...hat.com>, davem@...emloft.net,
        kuba@...nel.org, mst@...hat.com
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, "Xuan Zhuo" <xuanzhuo@...ux.alibaba.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 0/2] Introduce XDP_FLAGS_NO_TX flag

On Tue, Jan 12, 2021, at 14:03, Jason Wang wrote:
> 
> On 2021/1/9 上午10:49, Charlie Somerville wrote:
> > This patch series introduces a new flag XDP_FLAGS_NO_TX which prevents
> > the allocation of additional send queues for XDP programs.
> 
> 
> This part I don't understand. Is such flag a must? I think the answer is 
> probably not.
> 
> Why not simply do:
> 
> 1) if we had sufficient TX queues, use dedicated TX queues for XDP_TX
> 2) if we don't, simple synchronize through spin_lock[1]
> 
> Thanks
> 
> [1] https://www.spinics.net/lists/bpf/msg32587.html

The patch from Xuan Zhuo looks like a much better approach. I am happy to close this out in favour of that one! Thanks for the link.