netdev - Re: [PATCH v4 bpf-next 15/22] xsk: add multi-buffer documentation

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: <875y7flq8w.fsf@toke.dk>
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2023 12:56:31 +0200
From: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>
To: Magnus Karlsson <magnus.karlsson@...il.com>, Jakub Kicinski
 <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc: Maciej Fijalkowski <maciej.fijalkowski@...el.com>, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
 ast@...nel.org, daniel@...earbox.net, andrii@...nel.org,
 netdev@...r.kernel.org, magnus.karlsson@...el.com, bjorn@...nel.org,
 tirthendu.sarkar@...el.com, simon.horman@...igine.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 bpf-next 15/22] xsk: add multi-buffer documentation

Magnus Karlsson <magnus.karlsson@...il.com> writes:

> On Wed, 21 Jun 2023 at 22:34, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 21 Jun 2023 16:15:32 +0200 Magnus Karlsson wrote:
>> > > Hmm, okay, that sounds pretty tedious :P
>> >
>> > Indeed if you had to do it manually ;-). Do not think this max is
>> > important though, see next answer.
>>
>> Can't we add max segs to Lorenzo's XDP info?
>> include/uapi/linux/netdev.h
>
> That should be straight forward. I am just reluctant to add a user
> interface that might not be necessary.

Yeah, that was why I was asking what the expectations were before
suggesting adding this to the feature bits :)

However, given that the answer seems to be "it varies"...

> Maciej, how about changing your patch #13 so that we do not add a flag
> for zc_mb supported or not, but instead we add a flag that gives the
> user the max number of frags supported in zc mode? A 1 returned would
> mean that max 1 frag is supported, i.e. mb is not supported. Any
> number >1 would mean that mb is supported in zc mode for this device
> and the returned number is the max number of frags supported. This way
> we would not have to add one more user interface solely for getting
> the max number of frags supported. What do you think?

...I think it's a good idea to add the field, and this sounds like a
reasonable way of dealing with it (although it may need a bit more
plumbing on the netlink side?)

-Toke