[Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH v2 bpf 1/5] net: ethtool: add xdp properties flag set
Jesper Dangaard Brouer
jbrouer at redhat.com
Mon Dec 7 12:54:33 UTC 2020
On Fri, 4 Dec 2020 16:21:08 +0100
Daniel Borkmann <daniel at iogearbox.net> wrote:
> On 12/4/20 1:46 PM, Maciej Fijalkowski wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 04, 2020 at 01:18:31PM +0100, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
> >> alardam at gmail.com writes:
> >>> From: Marek Majtyka <marekx.majtyka at intel.com>
> >>>
> >>> Implement support for checking what kind of xdp functionality a netdev
> >>> supports. Previously, there was no way to do this other than to try
> >>> to create an AF_XDP socket on the interface or load an XDP program and see
> >>> if it worked. This commit changes this by adding a new variable which
> >>> describes all xdp supported functions on pretty detailed level:
> >>
> >> I like the direction this is going! :)
(Me too, don't get discouraged by our nitpicking, keep working on this! :-))
> >>
> >>> - aborted
> >>> - drop
> >>> - pass
> >>> - tx
>
> I strongly think we should _not_ merge any native XDP driver patchset
> that does not support/implement the above return codes.
I agree, with above statement.
> Could we instead group them together and call this something like
> XDP_BASE functionality to not give a wrong impression?
I disagree. I can accept that XDP_BASE include aborted+drop+pass.
I think we need to keep XDP_TX action separate, because I think that
there are use-cases where the we want to disable XDP_TX due to end-user
policy or hardware limitations.
Use-case(1): Cloud-provider want to give customers (running VMs) ability
to load XDP program for DDoS protection (only), but don't want to allow
customer to use XDP_TX (that can implement LB or cheat their VM
isolation policy).
Use-case(2): Disable XDP_TX on a driver to save hardware TX-queue
resources, as the use-case is only DDoS. Today we have this problem
with the ixgbe hardware, that cannot load XDP programs on systems with
more than 192 CPUs.
> If this is properly documented that these are basic must-have
> _requirements_, then users and driver developers both know what the
> expectations are.
We can still document that XDP_TX is a must-have requirement, when a
driver implements XDP.
> >>> - redirect
> >>
--
Best regards,
Jesper Dangaard Brouer
MSc.CS, Principal Kernel Engineer at Red Hat
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/brouer
More information about the Intel-wired-lan
mailing list