netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v4 0/8] bpf: cpumap: enable GRO for XDP

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: <CANn89iLpDW5GK5WJcKezFY17hENaC2EeUW7BkkbJZuzJc5r5bw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2025 16:31:22 +0100
From: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
To: Alexander Lobakin <aleksander.lobakin@...el.com>
Cc: Andrew Lunn <andrew+netdev@...n.ch>, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, 
	Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, 
	Lorenzo Bianconi <lorenzo@...nel.org>, Daniel Xu <dxu@...uu.xyz>, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>, 
	Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>, Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>, 
	John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...nel.org>, 
	Jesper Dangaard Brouer <hawk@...nel.org>, Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...ux.dev>, netdev@...r.kernel.org, 
	bpf@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v4 0/8] bpf: cpumap: enable GRO for XDP_PASS frames

On Mon, Feb 10, 2025 at 3:10 PM Alexander Lobakin
<aleksander.lobakin@...el.com> wrote:
>
> From: Alexander Lobakin <aleksander.lobakin@...el.com>
> Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2025 17:36:01 +0100
>
> > Several months ago, I had been looking through my old XDP hints tree[0]
> > to check whether some patches not directly related to hints can be sent
> > standalone. Roughly at the same time, Daniel appeared and asked[1] about
> > GRO for cpumap from that tree.
>
> I see "Changes requested" on Patchwork. Which ones?
>
> 1/8 regarding gro_node? Nobody proposed a solution which would be as
> efficient, but avoid using struct_group(), I don't see such as well.
> I explain in the commitmsgs and cover letter everything. Jakub gave me
> Acked-by on struct_group() in the v3 thread.

One of the points of your nice series is to dissociate GRO from NAPI,
so defining gro_node inside napi_struct is not appealing.

I suggested not putting napi_id in the new structure.

If you need to cache a copy in it for "performance/whatever reason",
you can cache napi_id, because napi->napi_id is only set once
in __napi_hash_add_with_id()

gro->napi_id_cache = napi->napi_id;