On Thu, Dec 08, 2016 at 10:58:52PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Thu, Dec 08, 2016 at 12:46:07PM -0800, John Fastabend wrote: > > On 16-12-08 11:38 AM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > > > On Thu, Dec 08, 2016 at 02:17:02PM -0500, David Miller wrote: > > >> From: John Fastabend <john.fastab...@gmail.com> > > >> Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2016 12:10:47 -0800 > > >> > > >>> This implements virtio_net for the mergeable buffers and big_packet > > >>> modes. I tested this with vhost_net running on qemu and did not see > > >>> any issues. For testing num_buf > 1 I added a hack to vhost driver > > >>> to only but 100 bytes per buffer. > > >> ... > > >> > > >> So where are we with this? > > > > There is one possible issue with a hang that Michael pointed out. I can > > either spin a v6 or if you pull this v5 series in I can post a bugfix > > for it. I am not seeing the issue in practice XDP virtio has been up > > and running on my box here for days without issue. > > > I'd prefer it fixed. Alternatively, apply just 1-3 for now.
Looks like there's no issue though after all. I misunderstood things. > > All the concerns below are really future XDP ideas and unrelated to > > this series or at least not required for this series to applied IMO. > > > > >> > > >> I'm not too thrilled with the idea of making XDP_TX optional or > > >> something like that. If someone enables XDP, there is a tradeoff. > > >> > > >> I also have reservations about the idea to make jumbo frames work > > >> without giving XDP access to the whole packet. If it wants to push or > > >> pop a header, it might need to know the whole packet length. How will > > >> you pass that to the XDP program? > > >> > > >> Some kinds of encapsulation require trailers, thus preclusing access > > >> to the entire packet precludes those kinds of transformations. > > > > > > +1 > > > > This was sort of speculative on my side it is certainly not dependent on > > the series here. I agree that we don't want to get into a state where > > program X runs here and not there and only runs after doing magic > > incantations, etc. I would only propose it if there is a clean way to > > implement this. > > > > > > > >> This is why we want simple, linear, buffer access for XDP. > > >> > > >> Even the most seemingly minor exception turns into a huge complicated > > >> mess. > > > > > > +1 > > > > Yep. > > > > > > > > and from the other thread: > > >>> Can't we disable XDP_TX somehow? Many people might only want RX drop, > > >>> and extra queues are not always there. > > >>> > > >> > > >> Alexei, Daniel, any thoughts on this? > > > > > > I don't like it. > > > > > > > OK alternatively we can make more queues available in virtio which might > > be the better solution. > > > > >> I know we were trying to claim some base level of feature support for > > >> all XDP drivers. I am sympathetic to this argument though for DDOS we > > >> do not need XDP_TX support. And virtio can become queue constrained > > >> in some cases. > > > > > > especially for ddos case doing lro/gro is not helpful. > > > > Fair enough but disabling LRO to handle the case where you "might" get > > a DDOS will hurt normal good traffic. > > > > > I frankly don't see a use case where you'd want to steer a packet > > > all the way into VM just to drop them there? > > > > VM to VM traffic is my use case. And in that model we need XDP at the > > virtio or vhost layer in case of malicious/broke/untrusted VM. I have > > some vhost patches under development for when net-next opens up again. > > > > > Without XDP_TX it's too crippled. adjust_head() won't be possible, > > > > Just a nit but any reason not to support adjust_head and then XDP_PASS. > > I don't have a use case in mind but also see no reason to preclude it. > > > > > packet mangling would have to be disabled and so on. > > > If xdp program doesn't see raw packet it can only parse the headers of > > > this jumbo meta-packet and drop it, but for virtio it's really too late. > > > ddos protection needs to be done at the earliest hw nic receive. > > > > VM to VM traffic never touches hw nic. > > > > > I think if driver claims xdp support it needs to support > > > drop/pass/tx and adjust_head. For metadata passing up into stack from xdp > > > we need adjust_head, for encap/decap we need it too. And lro is in the way > > > of such transformations. > > > We struggled a lot with cls_bpf due to all metadata inside skb that needs > > > to be kept correct. Feeding non-raw packets into xdp is a rat hole. > > > > > > > In summary: > > > > I think its worth investigating getting LRO working but agree we can't > > sacrifice any of the existing features or complicate the code to do it. > > If the result of investigating is it can't be done then that is how it > > is. > > > > Jumbo frames I care very little about in reality so should not have > > mentioned it. > > > > Requiring XDP drivers to support all features is fine for me I can make > > the virtio queue scheme a bit more flexible. Michael might have some > > opinion on this though. > > > > This series shouldn't be blocked by any of the above. > > > > Thanks, > > .John