Re: [PATCH net-next] tuntap: Fallback to automq on TUNSETSTEERINGEBPF prog negative return

2019-09-25 Thread Michael S. Tsirkin
On Sun, Sep 22, 2019 at 03:46:19PM -0700, Matt Cover wrote: > Unless of course we can simply state via > documentation that any negative return > for which a define doesn't exist is > undefined behavior. In which case, > there is no old vs new behavior and > no need for an ioctl. Simply the >

Re: [PATCH net-next] tuntap: Fallback to automq on TUNSETSTEERINGEBPF prog negative return

2019-09-24 Thread Jason Wang
On 2019/9/24 上午12:31, Matt Cover wrote: I think it's better to safe to just drop the packet instead of trying to workaround it. This patch aside, dropping the packet here seems like the wrong choice. Loading a prog at this hookpoint "configures" steering. The action of configuring steering

Re: [PATCH net-next] tuntap: Fallback to automq on TUNSETSTEERINGEBPF prog negative return

2019-09-23 Thread Matt Cover
On Sun, Sep 22, 2019 at 10:16 PM Jason Wang wrote: > > > On 2019/9/23 上午11:18, Matt Cover wrote: > > On Sun, Sep 22, 2019 at 7:34 PM Jason Wang wrote: > >> > >> On 2019/9/23 上午9:15, Matt Cover wrote: > >>> On Sun, Sep 22, 2019 at 5:51 PM Jason Wang wrote: > On 2019/9/23 上午6:30, Matt Cover

Re: [PATCH net-next] tuntap: Fallback to automq on TUNSETSTEERINGEBPF prog negative return

2019-09-22 Thread Jason Wang
On 2019/9/23 上午11:18, Matt Cover wrote: On Sun, Sep 22, 2019 at 7:34 PM Jason Wang wrote: On 2019/9/23 上午9:15, Matt Cover wrote: On Sun, Sep 22, 2019 at 5:51 PM Jason Wang wrote: On 2019/9/23 上午6:30, Matt Cover wrote: On Sun, Sep 22, 2019 at 1:36 PM Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: On Sun,

Re: [PATCH net-next] tuntap: Fallback to automq on TUNSETSTEERINGEBPF prog negative return

2019-09-22 Thread Jason Wang
On 2019/9/23 上午11:00, Matt Cover wrote: On Sun, Sep 22, 2019 at 7:32 PM Jason Wang wrote: On 2019/9/23 上午9:20, Matt Cover wrote: On Sun, Sep 22, 2019 at 5:46 PM Jason Wang wrote: On 2019/9/23 上午1:43, Matt Cover wrote: On Sun, Sep 22, 2019 at 5:37 AM Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: On Fri,

Re: [PATCH net-next] tuntap: Fallback to automq on TUNSETSTEERINGEBPF prog negative return

2019-09-22 Thread Matt Cover
On Sun, Sep 22, 2019 at 7:34 PM Jason Wang wrote: > > > On 2019/9/23 上午9:15, Matt Cover wrote: > > On Sun, Sep 22, 2019 at 5:51 PM Jason Wang wrote: > >> > >> On 2019/9/23 上午6:30, Matt Cover wrote: > >>> On Sun, Sep 22, 2019 at 1:36 PM Michael S. Tsirkin > >>> wrote: > On Sun, Sep 22,

Re: [PATCH net-next] tuntap: Fallback to automq on TUNSETSTEERINGEBPF prog negative return

2019-09-22 Thread Matt Cover
On Sun, Sep 22, 2019 at 7:32 PM Jason Wang wrote: > > > On 2019/9/23 上午9:20, Matt Cover wrote: > > On Sun, Sep 22, 2019 at 5:46 PM Jason Wang wrote: > >> > >> On 2019/9/23 上午1:43, Matt Cover wrote: > >>> On Sun, Sep 22, 2019 at 5:37 AM Michael S. Tsirkin > >>> wrote: > On Fri, Sep 20,

Re: [PATCH net-next] tuntap: Fallback to automq on TUNSETSTEERINGEBPF prog negative return

2019-09-22 Thread Jason Wang
On 2019/9/23 上午9:15, Matt Cover wrote: On Sun, Sep 22, 2019 at 5:51 PM Jason Wang wrote: On 2019/9/23 上午6:30, Matt Cover wrote: On Sun, Sep 22, 2019 at 1:36 PM Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: On Sun, Sep 22, 2019 at 10:43:19AM -0700, Matt Cover wrote: On Sun, Sep 22, 2019 at 5:37 AM Michael

Re: [PATCH net-next] tuntap: Fallback to automq on TUNSETSTEERINGEBPF prog negative return

2019-09-22 Thread Jason Wang
On 2019/9/23 上午9:20, Matt Cover wrote: On Sun, Sep 22, 2019 at 5:46 PM Jason Wang wrote: On 2019/9/23 上午1:43, Matt Cover wrote: On Sun, Sep 22, 2019 at 5:37 AM Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: On Fri, Sep 20, 2019 at 11:58:43AM -0700, Matthew Cover wrote: Treat a negative return from a

Re: [PATCH net-next] tuntap: Fallback to automq on TUNSETSTEERINGEBPF prog negative return

2019-09-22 Thread Matt Cover
On Sun, Sep 22, 2019 at 5:46 PM Jason Wang wrote: > > > On 2019/9/23 上午1:43, Matt Cover wrote: > > On Sun, Sep 22, 2019 at 5:37 AM Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > >> On Fri, Sep 20, 2019 at 11:58:43AM -0700, Matthew Cover wrote: > >>> Treat a negative return from a TUNSETSTEERINGEBPF bpf prog as a

Re: [PATCH net-next] tuntap: Fallback to automq on TUNSETSTEERINGEBPF prog negative return

2019-09-22 Thread Matt Cover
On Sun, Sep 22, 2019 at 5:51 PM Jason Wang wrote: > > > On 2019/9/23 上午6:30, Matt Cover wrote: > > On Sun, Sep 22, 2019 at 1:36 PM Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > >> On Sun, Sep 22, 2019 at 10:43:19AM -0700, Matt Cover wrote: > >>> On Sun, Sep 22, 2019 at 5:37 AM Michael S. Tsirkin > >>> wrote: >

Re: [PATCH net-next] tuntap: Fallback to automq on TUNSETSTEERINGEBPF prog negative return

2019-09-22 Thread Jason Wang
On 2019/9/23 上午6:30, Matt Cover wrote: On Sun, Sep 22, 2019 at 1:36 PM Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: On Sun, Sep 22, 2019 at 10:43:19AM -0700, Matt Cover wrote: On Sun, Sep 22, 2019 at 5:37 AM Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: On Fri, Sep 20, 2019 at 11:58:43AM -0700, Matthew Cover wrote: Treat a

Re: [PATCH net-next] tuntap: Fallback to automq on TUNSETSTEERINGEBPF prog negative return

2019-09-22 Thread Jason Wang
On 2019/9/23 上午1:43, Matt Cover wrote: On Sun, Sep 22, 2019 at 5:37 AM Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: On Fri, Sep 20, 2019 at 11:58:43AM -0700, Matthew Cover wrote: Treat a negative return from a TUNSETSTEERINGEBPF bpf prog as a signal to fallback to tun_automq_select_queue() for tx queue

Re: [PATCH net-next] tuntap: Fallback to automq on TUNSETSTEERINGEBPF prog negative return

2019-09-22 Thread Matt Cover
On Sun, Sep 22, 2019 at 3:46 PM Matt Cover wrote: > > On Sun, Sep 22, 2019 at 3:30 PM Matt Cover wrote: > > > > On Sun, Sep 22, 2019 at 1:36 PM Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > > > > On Sun, Sep 22, 2019 at 10:43:19AM -0700, Matt Cover wrote: > > > > On Sun, Sep 22, 2019 at 5:37 AM Michael S.

Re: [PATCH net-next] tuntap: Fallback to automq on TUNSETSTEERINGEBPF prog negative return

2019-09-22 Thread Matt Cover
On Sun, Sep 22, 2019 at 3:30 PM Matt Cover wrote: > > On Sun, Sep 22, 2019 at 1:36 PM Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > > On Sun, Sep 22, 2019 at 10:43:19AM -0700, Matt Cover wrote: > > > On Sun, Sep 22, 2019 at 5:37 AM Michael S. Tsirkin > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 20, 2019 at

Re: [PATCH net-next] tuntap: Fallback to automq on TUNSETSTEERINGEBPF prog negative return

2019-09-22 Thread Matt Cover
On Sun, Sep 22, 2019 at 1:36 PM Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > On Sun, Sep 22, 2019 at 10:43:19AM -0700, Matt Cover wrote: > > On Sun, Sep 22, 2019 at 5:37 AM Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 20, 2019 at 11:58:43AM -0700, Matthew Cover wrote: > > > > Treat a negative return from

Re: [PATCH net-next] tuntap: Fallback to automq on TUNSETSTEERINGEBPF prog negative return

2019-09-22 Thread Michael S. Tsirkin
On Sun, Sep 22, 2019 at 10:43:19AM -0700, Matt Cover wrote: > On Sun, Sep 22, 2019 at 5:37 AM Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > > On Fri, Sep 20, 2019 at 11:58:43AM -0700, Matthew Cover wrote: > > > Treat a negative return from a TUNSETSTEERINGEBPF bpf prog as a signal > > > to fallback to

Re: [PATCH net-next] tuntap: Fallback to automq on TUNSETSTEERINGEBPF prog negative return

2019-09-22 Thread Matt Cover
On Sun, Sep 22, 2019 at 5:37 AM Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 20, 2019 at 11:58:43AM -0700, Matthew Cover wrote: > > Treat a negative return from a TUNSETSTEERINGEBPF bpf prog as a signal > > to fallback to tun_automq_select_queue() for tx queue selection. > > > > Compilation of this

Re: [PATCH net-next] tuntap: Fallback to automq on TUNSETSTEERINGEBPF prog negative return

2019-09-22 Thread Michael S. Tsirkin
On Fri, Sep 20, 2019 at 11:58:43AM -0700, Matthew Cover wrote: > Treat a negative return from a TUNSETSTEERINGEBPF bpf prog as a signal > to fallback to tun_automq_select_queue() for tx queue selection. > > Compilation of this exact patch was tested. > > For functional testing 3 additional

Re: [PATCH net-next] tuntap: Fallback to automq on TUNSETSTEERINGEBPF prog negative return

2019-09-20 Thread Matt Cover
On Fri, Sep 20, 2019 at 11:59 AM Matthew Cover wrote: > > Treat a negative return from a TUNSETSTEERINGEBPF bpf prog as a signal > to fallback to tun_automq_select_queue() for tx queue selection. > > Compilation of this exact patch was tested. > > For functional testing 3 additional printk()s