On 01/26, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > On Mon, 26 Jan 2026 10:45:22 -0800 Bobby Eshleman wrote: > > I'm onboard with improving what we have since it helps all of us > > currently using this API, though I'm not opposed to discussing a > > redesign in another thread/RFC. I do see the attraction to locating the > > core logic in one place and possibly reducing some complexity around > > socket/binding relationships. > > > > FWIW regarding nl, I do see it supports rtnl lock-free operations via > > '62256f98f244 rtnetlink: add RTNL_FLAG_DOIT_UNLOCKED' and routing was > > recently made lockless with that. I don't see / know of any fast path > > precedent. I'm aware there are some things I'm not sure about being > > relevant performance-wise, like hitting skb alloc an additional time > > every release batch. I'd want to do some minimal latency comparisons > > between that path and sockopt before diving head-first. > > FTR I'm not really pushing Netlink specifically, it may work it > may not. Perhaps some other ioctl-y thing exists. Just in general > setsockopt() on a specific socket feels increasingly awkward for > buffer flow. Maybe y'all disagree. > > I thought I'd clarify since I may be seen as "Mr Netlink Everywhere" :)
>From my side, if we do a completely new uapi, my preference would be on an af_xdp like mapped rings (presumably on a netlink socket?) to completely avoid the user-kernel copies.
