> On 5 Apr 2018, at 09:47, Victor Julien <li...@inliniac.net> wrote: > >> On 04-04-18 14:28, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote: >> Hi Suricata people, >> >> When Eric Leblond (and I helped) integrated XDP in Suricata, we ran >> into the issue, that at Suricata load/start time, we cannot determine >> if the chosen XDP config options, like xdp-cpu-redirect[1], is valid on >> this HW (e.g require driver XDP_REDIRECT support and bpf cpumap). >> >> We would have liked a way to report that suricata.yaml config was >> invalid for this hardware/setup. Now, it just loads, and packets gets >> silently dropped by XDP (well a WARN_ONCE and catchable via tracepoints). >> >> My question to suricata developers: (Q1) Do you already have code that >> query the kernel or drivers for features? >> >> >> At the IOvisor call (2 weeks ago), we discussed two options of exposing >> XDP features avail in a given driver. >> >> Option#1: Extend existing ethtool -k/-K "offload and other features" >> with some XDP features, that userspace can query. (Do you already query >> offloads, regarding Q1) > > I think if it would use the ioctl ETHTOOL interface it'd be easiest for > us, as we already have code for this in place to check for offloading > settings. See [1]. > > >> Option#2: Invent a new 'ip link set xdp' netlink msg with a query option. > > Do you have an example of how this is queried? > > >> (Q2) Do Suricata devs have any preference (or other options/ideas) for >> the way the kernel expose this info to userspace? > > Right now I think extending the ethtool logic is best for us. >
+1 I would prefer that approach too. > > [1] https://github.com/OISF/suricata/blob/master/src/util-ioctl.c#L326 > > -- > --------------------------------------------- > Victor Julien > http://www.inliniac.net/ > PGP: http://www.inliniac.net/victorjulien.asc > --------------------------------------------- > _______________________________________________ iovisor-dev mailing list iovisor-dev@lists.iovisor.org https://lists.iovisor.org/mailman/listinfo/iovisor-dev