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: <CAAOQfrGqcsn3wu5oxzHYxtE8iK3=gFdTka5HSh5Fe9Hc6HWRWA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 3 Feb 2021 13:50:59 +0100
From:   Marek Majtyka <alardam@...il.com>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc:     Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.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, Feb 2, 2021 at 8:34 PM Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> 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).

I am a bit confused now. Did you mean validation tests of those XDP
flags, which I am working on or some other validation tests?
What should these tests verify? Can you please elaborate more on the
topic, please - just a few sentences how are you see it?