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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <Y73Ry+nNqOkeZtaj@dragonfly.lan> Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2023 22:59:55 +0200 From: Maxim Mikityanskiy <maxtram95@...il.com> To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Eelco Chaudron <echaudro@...hat.com>, Tariq Toukan <ttoukan.linux@...il.com>, Tariq Toukan <tariqt@...dia.com> Cc: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.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>, Andy Gospodarek <gospo@...adcom.com>, Lorenzo Bianconi <lorenzo@...nel.org>, gal@...dia.com, Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...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. > > A random datapoint is that bpf_xdp_adjust_head() seems > to enforce that there is at least ETH_HLEN. Also bpf_xdp_frags_increase_tail has the following check: if (!rxq->frag_size || rxq->frag_size > xdp->frame_sz) return -EOPNOTSUPP; However, I can't seem to find where the `frag_size > frame_sz` part is actually used. Maybe this condition can be dropped? Can someone shed some light? BTW, Tariq, we seem to have missed setting frag_size to a non-zero value. Could you check that increasing the tail indeed doesn't work on fragmented packets on mlx5e? I can send a oneliner to fix that.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists