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]

Date:   Tue, 2 Feb 2021 11:34:56 -0800
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>
Cc:     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>,
        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>,
        "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

On Tue, 02 Feb 2021 13:05:34 +0100 Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
> Marek Majtyka <alardam@...il.com> writes:
> 
> > Thanks Toke,
> >
> > In fact, I was waiting for a single confirmation, disagreement or
> > comment. I have it now. As there are no more comments, I am getting
> > down to work right away.  
> 
> Awesome! And sorry for not replying straight away - I hate it when I
> send out something myself and receive no replies, so I suppose I should
> get better at not doing that myself :)
> 
> As for the inclusion of the XDP_BASE / XDP_LIMITED_BASE sets (which I
> just realised I didn't reply to), I am fine with defining XDP_BASE as a
> shortcut for TX/ABORTED/PASS/DROP, but think we should skip
> XDP_LIMITED_BASE and instead require all new drivers to implement the
> full XDP_BASE set straight away. As long as we're talking about
> features *implemented* by the driver, at least; i.e., it should still be
> possible to *deactivate* XDP_TX if you don't want to use the HW
> resources, but I don't think there's much benefit from defining the
> LIMITED_BASE set as a shortcut for this mode...

I still have mixed feelings about these flags. The first step IMO
should be adding validation tests. I bet^W pray every vendor has
validation tests but since they are not unified we don't know what
level of interoperability we're achieving in practice. That doesn't
matter for trivial feature like base actions, but we'll inevitably 
move on to defining more advanced capabilities and the question of
"what supporting X actually mean" will come up (3 years later, when
we don't remember ourselves).