netdev - Re: [RFC net-next 04/13] net: page

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: <20230817170848.4f96f9c5@kernel.org>
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2023 17:08:48 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Mina Almasry <almasrymina@...gle.com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, hawk@...nel.org, ilias.apalodimas@...aro.org,
 aleksander.lobakin@...el.com, linyunsheng@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [RFC net-next 04/13] net: page_pool: id the page pools

On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 14:56:01 -0700 Mina Almasry wrote:
> Sorry maybe I'm missing something, but it's a bit curious to me that
> this ID is needed.

Right.. now I realize that I haven't explained the queue side.

I expect a similar API will be added to dump queue info, and then page
pool ID will be added to the queue object, to link which queue is being
fed from which page pool. I guess I should have said that in the cover
letter...

> An rx queue can only ever have 1 page-pool
> associated with it at a time, right? Could you instead add a pointer
> to the page_pool into 'struct netdev_rx_queue', 

100% my intention, which is why I moved the location of that struct
recently :)

> and then page-pool can be referred to by the netdev id & the rx-queue
> number? 

And use/type (headers vs payloads). And then nothing stops a driver from
using one page pool for multiple queues of the same type within a NAPI.
And then the page pools can die and linger (see patch 11).

> Wouldn't that make the implementation much simpler? I also believe
> the userspace refers to the rx-queue by its index number for the
> ethtool APIs like adding flow steering rules, so extending that to
> here maybe makes sense.