[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87plzsi5wj.fsf@toke.dk>
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2023 22:52:28 +0100
From: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>
To: Edward Cree <ecree.xilinx@...il.com>, Daniel Borkmann
<daniel@...earbox.net>, Jesper Dangaard Brouer <hawk@...nel.org>
Cc: Yan Zhai <yan@...udflare.com>, Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com>,
Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, Alexei
Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>, kernel-team <kernel-team@...udflare.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Eric
Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Jakub Sitnicki <jakub@...udflare.com>
Subject: Re: Does skb_metadata_differs really need to stop GRO aggregation?
Edward Cree <ecree.xilinx@...il.com> writes:
> On 28/11/2023 14:39, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
>> I'm not quite sure what should be the semantics of that, though. I.e.,
>> if you are trying to aggregate two packets that have the flag set, which
>> packet do you take the value from? What if only one packet has the flag
>> set? Or should we instead have a "metadata_xdp_only" flag that just
>> prevents the skb metadata field from being set entirely? Or would both
>> be useful?
>
> Sounds like what's actually needed is bpf progs inside the GRO engine
> to implement the metadata "protocol" prepare and coalesce callbacks?
Hmm, yes, I guess that would be the most general solution :)
-Toke
Powered by blists - more mailing lists