Daniel Borkmann <daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On 11/29/23 10:52 PM, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote: >> Edward Cree <ecree.xilinx@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >>> On 28/11/2023 14:39, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote: >>>> I'm not quite sure what should be the semantics of that, though. I.e., >>>> if you are trying to aggregate two packets that have the flag set, which >>>> packet do you take the value from? What if only one packet has the flag > > It would probably make sense if both packets have it set. Right, so "aggregate only if both packets have the flag set, keeping the metadata area from the first packet", then? >>>> set? Or should we instead have a "metadata_xdp_only" flag that just >>>> prevents the skb metadata field from being set entirely? > > What would be the use case compared to resetting meta data right before > we return with XDP_PASS? I was thinking it could save a call to xdp_adjust_meta() to reset it back to zero before PASSing the packet. But okay, that may be of marginal utility. >>> Sounds like what's actually needed is bpf progs inside the GRO engine >>> to implement the metadata "protocol" prepare and coalesce callbacks? >> >> Hmm, yes, I guess that would be the most general solution :) > > Feels like a potential good fit, agree, although for just solving the > above sth not requiring extra BPF might be nice as well. Yeah, I agree that just the flag makes sense on its own. -Toke
