From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from out-182.mta0.migadu.com (out-182.mta0.migadu.com [91.218.175.182]) (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 C600829BDA1 for ; Wed, 29 Oct 2025 00:30:23 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=91.218.175.182 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1761697826; cv=none; b=AaINeljstT25zrF2+6vAj2IH1k+LNdyq3I86QmuEOTMUPCjA70J67CXgxMbe0+J9BBmrc2/Oz1CIihF3U8j8MJupmB987hUnQ9cZd3Fu/w9Oc6qTHk8I7Rq/xjkBLQAIPsp64vgk+Db8V8Gd8ML2ryC/jugVzzGF/L+NZRkedyw= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1761697826; c=relaxed/simple; bh=BFp2VOOXg/vvY0+wkx4HQcNTNHWlJAGVc0AZqw9NsnE=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:From:Subject:To:Cc:References: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=jJU9J9RolzTgrmNtNEB8/4q8HSHU4HYJfFpTKy7mHxpr/qomrcYK+eDxv9WQ5+x9LH5gVtGqixtQEp4k8JDa7McyJ0/j5oaLEkZjx9+KyOHJaTPMkKW0KiuJhrxEk2XsLL0F7fFLQ5oNohOt5HM3Qcg2hXDI7gEAog1PdeJbAcQ= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.dev; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.dev; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux.dev header.i=@linux.dev header.b=hdiX8RxG; arc=none smtp.client-ip=91.218.175.182 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.dev Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.dev Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux.dev header.i=@linux.dev header.b="hdiX8RxG" Message-ID: DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linux.dev; s=key1; t=1761697821; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=fnDCxLRbb/ZeQwXZ8FgEr+f0AbXz70y90EJMoOKVMHs=; b=hdiX8RxGb2RboeKk0VMWeCaghnXKANApyvNT0I0fIoEjyZDg05i77VsME2kNXhIBlUTTr7 YNECrdAvnVI07ow6pgQTDoawMYsDbl/7ttV89qz8pM9NwIdP0SwrjSUYPfUD3GHU7+9Id8 CY1NaAY7ZIdHmWfUg2orAX/0vg6647w= Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2025 17:30:12 -0700 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Report-Abuse: Please report any abuse attempt to abuse@migadu.com and include these headers. From: Martin KaFai Lau Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v3 0/3] net/smc: Introduce smc_hs_ctrl To: "D. Wythe" Cc: martin.lau@linux.dev, ast@kernel.org, andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com, daniel@iogearbox.net, andrii@kernel.org, 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, mjambigi@linux.ibm.com, wenjia@linux.ibm.com, wintera@linux.ibm.com, dust.li@linux.alibaba.com, tonylu@linux.alibaba.com, guwen@linux.alibaba.com, bpf@vger.kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net, kuba@kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, sidraya@linux.ibm.com, jaka@linux.ibm.com References: <20250929063400.37939-1-alibuda@linux.alibaba.com> <20251028121531.GA51645@j66a10360.sqa.eu95> Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: <20251028121531.GA51645@j66a10360.sqa.eu95> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_OUT On 10/28/25 5:15 AM, D. Wythe wrote: > On Mon, Sep 29, 2025 at 02:33:57PM +0800, 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. >> >> This is a rework of the series from [1]. Changes since [1] are limited to >> the SMC parts: >> >> 1. Rename smc_ops to smc_hs_ctrl and change interface name. >> 2. Squash SMC patches, removing standalone non-BPF hook capability. >> 3. Fix typos > > > Hi bpf folks, > > I've noticed this patch has been pending for a while, and I wanted to > gently check in. Is there any specific concerns or feedback regarding > it from the BPF side? I'm keen to address any issues and move it > forward. The original v1 started last year. The bpf side had been responsive but the progress stopped for months and the smc side review had been slow also. I doubt how well will this be supported in the future and put this to the bottom of my list since then. The set does not apply on bpf-next/net now. Please re-spin.