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]
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2023 11:16:08 +0100
From: Florian Westphal <>
To: Pablo Neira Ayuso <>
Cc: Florian Westphal <>,,,
Subject: Re: [PATCH nf-next 0/8] netfilter: make nf_flowtable lifetime differ
 from container struct

Pablo Neira Ayuso <> wrote:
> > The work queue for hw offload (or ndo ops) are not used.
> OK, but is it possible to combine this XDP approach with hardware
> offload?

Yes.  We could disallow it if you prefer.

Ordering is, for ingress packet processing:
HW -> XDP -> nf flowtable -> classic forward path

instead of:

HW -> nf flowtable -> classic forward path

For the existing design.

> > If the xdp program can't handle it packet will be pushed up the stack,
> > i.e. nf ingress hook will handle it next.
> Then, only very simple scenarios will benefit from this acceleration.

Yes.  I don't see a reason to worry about more complex things right now.
E.g. PPPoE encap can be added later.

Or do you think this has to be added right from the very beginning?

I hope not.

> > > My understand is that XDP is all about programmibility, if user
> > > decides to go for XDP then simply fully implement the fast path is the
> > > XDP framework? I know of software already does so and they are
> > > perfectly fine with this approach.
> > 
> > I don't understand, you mean no integration at all?
> I mean, fully implement a fastpath in XDP/BPF using the datastructures
> that it provides.

I think its very bad for netfilter.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists