netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf-next v3 03/12] bpf: XDP metadata RX kfuncs

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:   Thu, 8 Dec 2022 18:57:36 -0800
From:   Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc:     bpf@...r.kernel.org, ast@...nel.org, daniel@...earbox.net,
        andrii@...nel.org, martin.lau@...ux.dev, song@...nel.org,
        yhs@...com, john.fastabend@...il.com, kpsingh@...nel.org,
        haoluo@...gle.com, jolsa@...nel.org,
        David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>,
        Willem de Bruijn <willemb@...gle.com>,
        Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>,
        Anatoly Burakov <anatoly.burakov@...el.com>,
        Alexander Lobakin <alexandr.lobakin@...el.com>,
        Magnus Karlsson <magnus.karlsson@...il.com>,
        Maryam Tahhan <mtahhan@...hat.com>, xdp-hints@...-project.net,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v3 03/12] bpf: XDP metadata RX kfuncs

On Thu, Dec 8, 2022 at 5:30 PM Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 8 Dec 2022 11:07:43 -0800 Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
> > > >       bpf_free_used_maps(aux);
> > > >       bpf_free_used_btfs(aux);
> > > > -     if (bpf_prog_is_offloaded(aux))
> > > > +     if (bpf_prog_is_dev_bound(aux))
> > > >               bpf_prog_offload_destroy(aux->prog);
> > >
> > > This also looks a touch like a mix of terms (condition vs function
> > > called).
> >
> > Here, not sure, open to suggestions. These
> > bpf_prog_offload_init/bpf_prog_offload_destroy are generic enough
> > (now) that I'm calling them for both dev_bound/offloaded.
> >
> > The following paths trigger for both offloaded/dev_bound cases:
> >
> > if (bpf_prog_is_dev_bound()) bpf_prog_offload_init();
> > if (bpf_prog_is_dev_bound()) bpf_prog_offload_destroy();
> >
> > Do you think it's worth it having completely separate
> > dev_bound/offloaded paths? Or, alternatively, can rename to
> > bpf_prog_dev_bound_{init,destroy} but still handle both cases?
>
> Any offload should be bound, right? So I think functions which handle
> both can use the bound naming scheme, only the offload-specific ones
> should explicitly use offload?

Agreed. Will rename the common ones to dev_offload!