[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20260131161511.10f3cade@kernel.org>
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2026 16:15:11 -0800
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
Cc: 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 v8 03/16] net: Add lease info to queue-get
response
On Thu, 29 Jan 2026 23:28:17 +0100 Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> # ip netns exec foo ls /sys/class/net/nk/queues/
> rx-0 rx-1 tx-0
>
> # ip netns exec foo ./pyynl/cli.py \
> --spec ~/netlink/specs/netdev.yaml \
> --do queue-get \
> --json '{"ifindex": 8, "id": 1, "type": "rx"}'
> {'id': 1, 'ifindex': 8, 'type': 'rx'}
I think the memory provider is going to be missing here?
We want the container to see its memory provider but IIUC the mp_priv
ends up on the lessor's queue.
I started wondering if we don't need extra checks for XDP (MPs and XDP
don't currently mix) but IIUC the mp ends up on the "real" queue, so
XDP should be fine. So either we need to follow down here, or pop the
mp pointers onto both queues?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists