netdev - Re: [PATCH v2 bpf 1/5] net: ethtool: add xdp properties flag set

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: <87h7mvsr0e.fsf@toke.dk>
Date:   Mon, 01 Feb 2021 17:16:01 +0100
From:   Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>
To:     Marek Majtyka <alardam@...il.com>,
        Saeed Mahameed <saeed@...nel.org>,
        David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>,
        Maciej Fijalkowski <maciej.fijalkowski@...el.com>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
        Jesper Dangaard Brouer <jbrouer@...hat.com>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Maciej Fijalkowski <maciejromanfijalkowski@...il.com>
Cc:     Björn Töpel <bjorn.topel@...el.com>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>,
        Jonathan Lemon <jonathan.lemon@...il.com>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, hawk@...nel.org,
        bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
        intel-wired-lan <intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        "Karlsson, Magnus" <magnus.karlsson@...el.com>,
        jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 bpf 1/5] net: ethtool: add xdp properties flag set

Marek Majtyka <alardam@...il.com> writes:

> I would like to thank you for your time, comments, nitpicking as well
> as encouraging.
>
> One thing needs clarification I think, that is, that those flags
> describe driver static feature sets - which are read-only. They have
> nothing in common with driver runtime configuration change yet.
> Runtime change of this state can be added but it needs a new variable
> and it can be done later on if someone needs it.
>
> Obviously, it is not possible to make everybody happy, especially with
> XDP_BASE flags set. To be honest, this XDP_BASE definition is a
> syntactic sugar for me and I can live without it. We can either remove
> it completely, from
> which IMO we all and other developers will suffer later on, or maybe
> we can agree on these two helper set of flags: XDP_BASE (TX, ABORTED,
> PASS, DROP) and XDP_LIMITED_BASE(ABORTED,PASS_DROP).
> What do you think?
>
> I am also going to add a new XDP_REDIRECT_TARGET flag and retrieving
> XDP flags over rtnelink interface.
>
> I also think that for completeness, ethtool implementation should be
> kept  together with rtnelink part in order to cover both ip and
> ethtool tools. Do I have your approval or disagreement? Please let me
> know.

Hi Marek

I just realised that it seems no one actually replied to your email. On
my part at least that was because I didn't have any objections, so I'm
hoping you didn't feel the lack of response was discouraging (and that
you're still working on a revision of this series)? :)

-Toke