On Fri, Mar 11, 2022 at 8:36 AM Maxim Mikityanskiy <maximmi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@xxxxxxxxx> > > Sent: 27 February, 2022 05:25 > > > > On Thu, Feb 24, 2022 at 05:11:44PM +0200, Maxim Mikityanskiy wrote: > > > @@ -7798,6 +7916,14 @@ xdp_func_proto(enum bpf_func_id func_id, const > > struct bpf_prog *prog) > > > return &bpf_tcp_check_syncookie_proto; > > > case BPF_FUNC_tcp_gen_syncookie: > > > return &bpf_tcp_gen_syncookie_proto; > > > + case BPF_FUNC_tcp_raw_gen_syncookie_ipv4: > > > + return &bpf_tcp_raw_gen_syncookie_ipv4_proto; > > > + case BPF_FUNC_tcp_raw_gen_syncookie_ipv6: > > > + return &bpf_tcp_raw_gen_syncookie_ipv6_proto; > > > + case BPF_FUNC_tcp_raw_check_syncookie_ipv4: > > > + return &bpf_tcp_raw_check_syncookie_ipv4_proto; > > > + case BPF_FUNC_tcp_raw_check_syncookie_ipv6: > > > + return &bpf_tcp_raw_check_syncookie_ipv6_proto; > > > #endif > > > > I understand that the main use case for new helpers is XDP specific, > > but why limit them to XDP? > > The feature looks generic and applicable to skb too. > > That sounds like an extra feature, rather than a limitation. That's out > of scope of what I planned to do. > > Besides, it sounds kind of useless to me, because the intention of the > new helpers is to accelerate synproxy, and I doubt BPF over SKBs will > accelerate anything. Maybe someone else has another use case for these > helpers and SKBs - in that case I leave the opportunity to add this > feature up to them. This patchset will not be accepted until the feature is generalized to both xdp and skb and tested for both. "I dont have a use case for it" is not an excuse to narrow down the scope.
