From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Gilberto Subject: Re: [net-next RFC 0/4] SO_BINDTOSUBNET Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2016 22:29:07 +0000 Message-ID: <56F5BBB3.4010706@gmail.com> References: <1458134349-2454-1-git-send-email-gilberto.bertin@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Linux Kernel Network Developers To: Tom Herbert Return-path: Received: from mail-wm0-f43.google.com ([74.125.82.43]:37348 "EHLO mail-wm0-f43.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754597AbcCYW3L (ORCPT ); Fri, 25 Mar 2016 18:29:11 -0400 Received: by mail-wm0-f43.google.com with SMTP id p65so36010666wmp.0 for ; Fri, 25 Mar 2016 15:29:10 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 03/25/2016 12:25 AM, Tom Herbert wrote: > On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 6:19 AM, Gilberto Bertin > wrote: >> This is my second attempt to submit an RFC for this patch. >> >> Some arguments for and against it since the first submission: >> * SO_BINDTOSUBNET is an arbitrary option and can be seens as nother use >> * case of the SO_REUSEPORT BPF patch >> * but at the same time using BPF requires more work/code on the server >> and since the bind to subnet use case could potentially become a >> common one maybe there is some value in having it as an option instead >> of having to code (either manually or with clang) an eBPF program that >> would do the same > > Gilberto, I'm not sure I understand this argument. Have you > implemented the BPF bind solution? > > Thanks, > Tom Yes, I wrote up a very basic draft for this feature (I didn't know there was already some work going on with SO_ATTACH_REUSEPORT_[CE]BPF). Thanks, Gilberto