From: Tom Herbert <t...@herbertland.com> Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2017 14:26:50 -0800
> On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 2:17 PM, David Miller <da...@davemloft.net> wrote: >> From: Tom Herbert <t...@herbertland.com> >> Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2017 15:41:20 -0800 >> >>> These hooks are also generic to allow for XDP/BPF programs as well >>> as non-BPF code (e.g. kernel code can be written in a module). >> >> I don't think we should even remotely consider surrendering the XDP >> hook to module code. >> >> We restrict it to eBPF for a reason, because that framework is >> restricted in what it can do, what it can access, and how it can do >> so. >> > Kernel modules go through extensive netdev review before they are > taken into the kernel, for BPF programs we just allow what any user > gives us without any peer review even implied. We can actually control what externally written XDP eBPF programs can do, for kernel modules we have no such control or influence. This hook runs right in the driver and bypasses the entire stack, it has to execute in a hardened thing that cannot crash and it will not as long as BPF verifier is correct. And you're going to make it even more complicated what XDP offload in hardware actually means. With eBPF it is very clearly defined what the necessary execution engine is. Tom I'm strongly against being allowed to run arbitrary module code from the XDP hook, sorry. It is as important as the distinction between full stack offload and partial offload in those nice charts in your talks. :-)
