[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Y7b5K2NCp17xHU/N@C02YVCJELVCG.dhcp.broadcom.net>
Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2023 11:22:03 -0500
From: Andy Gospodarek <andrew.gospodarek@...adcom.com>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>,
Tariq Toukan <ttoukan.linux@...il.com>,
Andy Gospodarek <andrew.gospodarek@...adcom.com>,
ast@...nel.org, daniel@...earbox.net, davem@...emloft.net,
hawk@...nel.org, john.fastabend@...il.com, andrii@...nel.org,
kafai@...com, songliubraving@...com, yhs@...com,
kpsingh@...nel.org, lorenzo.bianconi@...hat.com,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>,
Ilias Apalodimas <ilias.apalodimas@...aro.org>,
Lorenzo Bianconi <lorenzo@...nel.org>, gal@...dia.com,
Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...dia.com>, tariqt@...dia.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2] samples/bpf: fixup some tools to be able to
support xdp multibuffer
On Tue, Jan 03, 2023 at 05:21:53PM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Tue, 03 Jan 2023 16:19:49 +0100 Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
> > Hmm, good question! I don't think we've ever explicitly documented any
> > assumptions one way or the other. My own mental model has certainly
> > always assumed the first frag would continue to be the same size as in
> > non-multi-buf packets.
>
> Interesting! :) My mental model was closer to GRO by frags
> so the linear part would have no data, just headers.
As I mentioned in my mail just a few mins ago, I think this would be a good
model to consider. All headers (including potentially tunnel headers) could be
in the linear area with the actual packet data in frags.
> A random datapoint is that bpf_xdp_adjust_head() seems
> to enforce that there is at least ETH_HLEN.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists