netdev - Re: [PATCH v14 bpf-next 00/18] mvneta: introduce XDP multi-buffer support

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: <B46C005A-CCB0-442D-A2E4-19B34ABB97CE@redhat.com>
Date:   Wed, 06 Oct 2021 12:08:16 +0200
From:   Eelco Chaudron <echaudro@...hat.com>
To:     Lorenzo Bianconi <lorenzo.bianconi@...hat.com>
Cc:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Lorenzo Bianconi <lorenzo@...nel.org>,
        Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>,
        Lorenz Bauer <lmb@...udflare.com>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
        Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>, shayagr@...zon.com,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
        David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>,
        Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>,
        Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>,
        Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@...il.com>,
        Saeed Mahameed <saeed@...nel.org>,
        Maciej Fijalkowski <maciej.fijalkowski@...el.com>,
        "Karlsson, Magnus" <magnus.karlsson@...el.com>,
        tirthendu.sarkar@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v14 bpf-next 00/18] mvneta: introduce XDP multi-buffer support



On 6 Oct 2021, at 11:32, Lorenzo Bianconi wrote:

>> On Fri, 1 Oct 2021 11:03:58 +0200 Lorenzo Bianconi wrote:
>>> Can you please check if the code above is aligned to current requirements or if
>>> it is missing something?
>>> If this code it is fine, I guess we have two option here:
>>> - integrate the commits above in xdp multi-buff series (posting v15) and work on
>>>   the verfier code in parallel (if xdp_mb_pointer helper is not required from day0)
>>> - integrate verfier changes in xdp multi-buff series, drop bpf_xdp_load_bytes
>>>   helper (probably we will still need bpf_xdp_store_bytes) and introduce
>>>   bpf_xdp_pointer as new ebpf helper.
>>
>> It wasn't clear to me that we wanted bpf_xdp_load_bytes() to exist.
>> But FWIW no preference here.
>>
>
> ack, same here. Any other opinion about it?

I was under the impression getting a pointer might be enough. But playing with the bpf ring buffers for a bit, it still might be handy to extract some data to be sent to userspace. So I would not mind keeping it.