Johannes Berg <johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > 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? Right; you probably know that better than me :) > 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. Absolutely; totally on board with that! -Toke
