netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf-next v7 0/6] net/smc: Introduce smc

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: <20250123073303.GR89233@linux.alibaba.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2025 15:33:03 +0800
From: Dust Li <dust.li@...ux.alibaba.com>
To: "D. Wythe" <alibuda@...ux.alibaba.com>, kgraul@...ux.ibm.com,
	wenjia@...ux.ibm.com, jaka@...ux.ibm.com, ast@...nel.org,
	daniel@...earbox.net, andrii@...nel.org, martin.lau@...ux.dev,
	pabeni@...hat.com, song@...nel.org, sdf@...gle.com,
	haoluo@...gle.com, yhs@...com, edumazet@...gle.com,
	john.fastabend@...il.com, kpsingh@...nel.org, jolsa@...nel.org,
	guwen@...ux.alibaba.com
Cc: kuba@...nel.org, davem@...emloft.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org,
	bpf@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v7 0/6] net/smc: Introduce smc_ops

On 2025-01-23 09:59:36, D. Wythe wrote:
>This patch aims to introduce BPF injection capabilities for SMC and
>includes a self-test to ensure code stability.
>
>Since the SMC protocol isn't ideal for every situation, especially
>short-lived ones, most applications can't guarantee the absence of
>such scenarios. Consequently, applications may need specific strategies
>to decide whether to use SMC. For example, an application might limit SMC
>usage to certain IP addresses or ports.
>
>To maintain the principle of transparent replacement, we want applications
>to remain unaffected even if they need specific SMC strategies. In other
>words, they should not require recompilation of their code.
>
>Additionally, we need to ensure the scalability of strategy implementation.
>While using socket options or sysctl might be straightforward, it could
>complicate future expansions.
>
>Fortunately, BPF addresses these concerns effectively. Users can write
>their own strategies in eBPF to determine whether to use SMC, and they can
>easily modify those strategies in the future.

The series looks good to me, except the name of smc_ops, we should come
up with a better name.

Best regards,
Dust