netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf-next V2] xdp: bpf_xdp_metadata use NODEV for no device 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: <CAKH8qBujK0RnOHi3EH_KwKamEtQRYJ6izoYRBB2_2CQias0HXA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 17 Feb 2023 09:40:44 -0800
From:   Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com>
To:     Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...ux.dev>
Cc:     Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, martin.lau@...nel.org, ast@...nel.org,
        daniel@...earbox.net, alexandr.lobakin@...el.com,
        larysa.zaremba@...el.com, xdp-hints@...-project.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next V2] xdp: bpf_xdp_metadata use NODEV for no device support

On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 9:39 AM Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...ux.dev> wrote:
>
> On 2/17/23 9:32 AM, Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
> > On 02/17, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
> >> With our XDP-hints kfunc approach, where individual drivers overload the
> >> default implementation, it can be hard for API users to determine
> >> whether or not the current device driver have this kfunc available.
> >
> >> Change the default implementations to use an errno (ENODEV), that
> >> drivers shouldn't return, to make it possible for BPF runtime to
> >> determine if bpf kfunc for xdp metadata isn't implemented by driver.
> >
> >> This is intended to ease supporting and troubleshooting setups. E.g.
> >> when users on mailing list report -19 (ENODEV) as an error, then we can
> >> immediately tell them their device driver is too old.
> >
> > I agree with the v1 comments that I'm not sure how it helps.
> > Why can't we update the doc in the same fashion and say that
> > the drivers shouldn't return EOPNOTSUPP?
> >
> > I'm fine with the change if you think it makes your/users life
> > easier. Although I don't really understand how. We can, as Toke
> > mentioned, ask the users to provide jited program dump if it's
> > mostly about user reports.
>
> and there is xdp-features also.

Yeah, I was going to suggest it, but then I wasn't sure how to
reconcile our 'kfunc is not a uapi' with xdp-features (that probably
is a uapi)?