[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <aPvBQJ6FUN5X2kMW@mini-arch>
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2025 11:11:12 -0700
From: Stanislav Fomichev <stfomichev@...il.com>
To: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
Cc: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
bpf@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net, razor@...ckwall.org,
pabeni@...hat.com, willemb@...gle.com, sdf@...ichev.me,
john.fastabend@...il.com, martin.lau@...nel.org, jordan@...fe.io,
maciej.fijalkowski@...el.com, magnus.karlsson@...el.com,
dw@...idwei.uk, toke@...hat.com, yangzhenze@...edance.com,
wangdongdong.6@...edance.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v3 01/15] net: Add bind-queue operation
On 10/24, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> On 10/24/25 4:12 AM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > On Mon, 20 Oct 2025 18:23:41 +0200 Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> > > + name: bind-queue
> > > + doc: |
> > > + Bind a physical netdevice queue to a virtual one. The binding
> > > + creates a queue pair, where a queue can reference its peer queue.
> > > + This is useful for memory providers and AF_XDP operations which
> > > + take an ifindex and queue id to allow auch applications to bind
> > > + against virtual devices in containers.
> > > + attribute-set: queue-pair
> >
> > flags: [admin-perm]
> >
> > right?
> Oh, yes good catch! I've just checked for other instances in that file, don't
> we also need the same flag for bind-tx? bind-rx for example has it, only the
> info dumps don't. I can cook a patch for net
IIRC, TX side was non-admin-perm by design (because it only references the
binding for tx and doesn't need any heavy device setup).
Powered by blists - more mailing lists