On 23/11/2023 16:30, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote: > I was hoping not to say anything but my fingers couldnt help themselves: > So "unoffloadable" means there is a binary blob and this doesnt work > per your design idea of how it should work? > Not that it cant be implemented (clearly it has been implemented), it > is just not how _you_ would implement it? All along I thought this was > an issue with your hardware. The kernel doesn't like to trust offload blobs from a userspace compiler, because it has no way to be sure that what comes out of the compiler matches the rules/tables/whatever it has in the SW datapath. It's also a support nightmare because it's basically like each user compiling their own device firmware. At least normally with device firmware the driver side is talking to something with narrow/fixed semantics and went through upstream review, even if the firmware side is still a black box. Just to prove I'm not playing favourites: this is *also* a problem with eBPF offloads like Nanotubes, and I'm not convinced we have a viable solution yet. The only way I can see to handle it is something analogous to proof- carrying code, where the kernel (driver, since the blob is likely to be wholly vendor-specific) can inspect the binary blob and verify somehow that (assuming the HW behaves according to its datasheet) it implements the same thing that exists in SW. Or simplify the hardware design enough that the compiler can be small and tight enough to live in-kernel, but that's often impossible. -ed
