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: <20250214092209.GA88970@j66a10360.sqa.eu95>
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2025 17:22:09 +0800
From: "D. Wythe" <alibuda@...ux.alibaba.com    >
To: "D. Wythe" <alibuda@...ux.alibaba.com>, wenjia@...ux.ibm.com,
	jaka@...ux.ibm.com
Cc: 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, 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 Thu, Jan 23, 2025 at 09:59:36AM +0800, 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.

Hi smc folks, @Wenjia @Ian

Is there any feedback regarding this patches ? This series of code has
gone through multiple rounds of community reviews. However, the parts
related to SMC, including the new sysctl and ops name, really needs
your input and acknowledgment.

Additionally, this series includes a bug fix for SMC, which is easily
reproducible in the BPF CI tests.

Thanks,
D. Wythe