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: <ZNEHuaY+9LWzfZMt@lincoln> Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2023 17:03:21 +0200 From: Larysa Zaremba <larysa.zaremba@...el.com> To: Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com> CC: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>, Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>, Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>, Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...ux.dev>, Song Liu <song@...nel.org>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>, John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>, KP Singh <kpsingh@...nel.org>, Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com>, Hao Luo <haoluo@...gle.com>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>, David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, 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>, "Network Development" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, Simon Horman <simon.horman@...igine.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v4 12/21] xdp: Add checksum hint On Wed, Aug 02, 2023 at 09:27:27AM -0400, Willem de Bruijn wrote: > > No. What I'm saying is that XDP_CHECKSUM_UNNECESSARY should be > > equivalent to skb's CHECKSUM_UNNECESSARY with csum_level = 0. > > I'm well aware that some drivers are trying to be smart and put csum_level=1. > > There is no use case for it in XDP. > > "But our HW supports it so XDP prog should read it" is the reason NOT > > to expose it to bpf in generic api. > > > > Either we're doing per-driver kfuncs and no common infra or common kfunc > > that covers 99% of the drivers. Which is CHECKSUM_UNNECESSARY && csum_level = 0 > > > > It's not acceptable to present a generic api to xdp prog with multi level > > csum that only works on a specific HW. Next thing there will be new flags > > and MAX_CSUM_LEVEL in XDP features. > > Pretending to be generic while being HW specific is the worst interface. > > Ok. Agreed that without it we still cover 99% of the use cases. Fine to drop. Sorry for the late response. Thanks everyone for the feedback, will drop the checksum level concept from the design.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists