From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from out30-118.freemail.mail.aliyun.com (out30-118.freemail.mail.aliyun.com [115.124.30.118]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6B4B9179A7; Thu, 23 Jan 2025 07:33:07 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=115.124.30.118 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1737617591; cv=none; b=iKDAnX/oMc8NwoD9jp7Yik+qTMGpwCoPKkECqYH6DlUPTqXTlH6LKNwNt536MWjDNLD1B3q4VbuSXqgMVFVpYVJEoTzvTZYe2q0BAXrZMLWgSHXl0TdMDYw92n82JU2qOMF4U7qHA4HafzCbeba9ZMiz7B4hbYuQFCRp1M7V/Lo= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1737617591; c=relaxed/simple; bh=VgZ6NpiJIBnOImn9hg7EpJtXzuG0hqCcxpeAx/83DGU=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=iPw1qIGLgj7eJHN2ubCFly561K0z/DIh2aelKvLCmktEqAwPU5UiY9Rd/tXfRw4hlD61Kuq8jVWbRAL9EeELhgMEo3DnsikxpgzKQ+xLfhYW7Sghv2ca0IjlhagwlMNgZQYeWYWwES7htXYHfUvXm1LpFlEFpG6h7TYs09oqu+A= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.alibaba.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.alibaba.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux.alibaba.com header.i=@linux.alibaba.com header.b=EFkqSsMM; arc=none smtp.client-ip=115.124.30.118 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.alibaba.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.alibaba.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux.alibaba.com header.i=@linux.alibaba.com header.b="EFkqSsMM" DKIM-Signature:v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linux.alibaba.com; s=default; t=1737617586; h=Date:From:To:Subject:Message-ID:MIME-Version:Content-Type; bh=VgZ6NpiJIBnOImn9hg7EpJtXzuG0hqCcxpeAx/83DGU=; b=EFkqSsMMESJ61Y+71C2oLESm0t9h+WHbiNghTaD/0OU2G3PN7ifrYpYCUB/tTCsuBhccmTKyyHc1cq6SDmmaRkybSrZ08Zao1MHCa8tqIO31ueBumgmv5HpjzEXsJoYQNo6/4gIxHjR0YQfW98Xump2Ff+1BISChQKM1kGgYZSA= Received: from localhost(mailfrom:dust.li@linux.alibaba.com fp:SMTPD_---0WOAr9.D_1737617584 cluster:ay36) by smtp.aliyun-inc.com; Thu, 23 Jan 2025 15:33:04 +0800 Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2025 15:33:03 +0800 From: Dust Li To: "D. Wythe" , kgraul@linux.ibm.com, wenjia@linux.ibm.com, jaka@linux.ibm.com, ast@kernel.org, daniel@iogearbox.net, andrii@kernel.org, martin.lau@linux.dev, pabeni@redhat.com, song@kernel.org, sdf@google.com, haoluo@google.com, yhs@fb.com, edumazet@google.com, john.fastabend@gmail.com, kpsingh@kernel.org, jolsa@kernel.org, guwen@linux.alibaba.com Cc: kuba@kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org, bpf@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v7 0/6] net/smc: Introduce smc_ops Message-ID: <20250123073303.GR89233@linux.alibaba.com> Reply-To: dust.li@linux.alibaba.com References: <20250123015942.94810-1-alibuda@linux.alibaba.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20250123015942.94810-1-alibuda@linux.alibaba.com> On 2025-01-23 09:59:36, D. Wythe wrote: >This patch aims to introduce BPF injection capabilities for SMC and >includes a self-test to ensure code stability. > >Since the SMC protocol isn't ideal for every situation, especially >short-lived ones, most applications can't guarantee the absence of >such scenarios. Consequently, applications may need specific strategies >to decide whether to use SMC. For example, an application might limit SMC >usage to certain IP addresses or ports. > >To maintain the principle of transparent replacement, we want applications >to remain unaffected even if they need specific SMC strategies. In other >words, they should not require recompilation of their code. > >Additionally, we need to ensure the scalability of strategy implementation. >While using socket options or sysctl might be straightforward, it could >complicate future expansions. > >Fortunately, BPF addresses these concerns effectively. Users can write >their own strategies in eBPF to determine whether to use SMC, and they can >easily modify those strategies in the future. The series looks good to me, except the name of smc_ops, we should come up with a better name. Best regards, Dust