On Mon, 2018-12-03 at 21:36 +0200, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote: > Hi Johannes > > I think your email can be basically summed up to: > > > [ ... ] but really I think it's a can of worms. > > ...right? :) Heh, yeah :) > I sort of had a feeling it would be, but thank you for spelling out in > excruciating detail why that is so. :-) > Given this, I think I agree that it's not worth it for now, and we > should hold off on adding XDP support until we have 802.3/.11 conversion > offload working... Which I think is also where you ended up? :) That case is at least easy, yeah. And it seems kinda likely that we'll end up with that in all well-maintained drivers in the relatively near future anyway? BTW, in a sense I still kind of want to add eBPF to the mac80211 ingress path, just not in the XDP sense. For example, I had a proposal a while ago to add a filter to the monitor mode RX path(s) in eBPF; I still think that's useful. I also think it may be useful to put eBPF programs into per-netdev ingress path, in order to e.g. collect statistics, rather than hard- coding all kinds of statistics into mac80211. All of these things I consider absolutely useful and helpful. I like eBPF and the flexibility it affords. I just really don't think we should call it XDP or let it do similar things to XDP like dropping or redirecting frames. johannes
