netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v2 0/9] xsk: improvement performance in copy mode

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20250825181532.1b6ae14f@kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2025 18:15:32 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Jason Xing <kerneljasonxing@...il.com>
Cc: davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com, pabeni@...hat.com,
 bjorn@...nel.org, magnus.karlsson@...el.com, maciej.fijalkowski@...el.com,
 jonathan.lemon@...il.com, sdf@...ichev.me, ast@...nel.org,
 daniel@...earbox.net, hawk@...nel.org, john.fastabend@...il.com,
 horms@...nel.org, andrew+netdev@...n.ch, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
 netdev@...r.kernel.org, Jason Xing <kernelxing@...cent.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 0/9] xsk: improvement performance in copy
 mode

On Tue, 26 Aug 2025 08:51:24 +0800 Jason Xing wrote:
> > > Sorry for missing the question. I'm not very familiar with how to run the
> > > test based on AF_PACKET. Could you point it out for me? Thanks.
> > >
> > > I remember the very initial version of AF_XDP was pure AF_PACKET. So
> > > may I ask why we expect to see the comparison between them?  
> >
> > Pretty sure I told you this at least twice but the point of AF_XDP
> > is the ZC mode. Without a comparison to AF_PACKET which has similar
> > functionality optimizing AF_XDP copy mode seems unjustified.  
> 
> Oh, I see. Let me confirm again that you expect to see a demo like the
> copy mode of AF_PACKET v4 [1] and see the differences in performance,
> right?
> 
> If AF_PACKET eventually outperforms AF_XDP, do we need to reinvent the
> copy mode based on AF_PACKET?
> 
> And if a quick/simple implementation is based on AF_PACKET, it
> shouldn't be that easy to use the same benchmark to see which one is
> better. That means inventing a new unified benchmark tool is
> necessary?

To be honest I suspect you can get an LLM to convert your AF_XDP test
to use AF_PACKET..