Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20210511044253.469034-1-yuri.benditovich@daynix.com>
 <20210511044253.469034-5-yuri.benditovich@daynix.com> <eb8c4984-f0cc-74ee-537f-fc60deaaaa73@redhat.com>
 <CAOEp5OdrCDPx4ijLcEOm=Wxma6hc=nyqw4Xm6bggBxvgtR0tbg@mail.gmail.com>
 <89759261-3a72-df6c-7a81-b7a48abfad44@redhat.com> <CAOEp5Ocm9Q69Fv=oeyCs01F9J4nCTPiOPpw9_BRZ0WnF+LtEFQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACGkMEsZBCzV+d_eLj1aYT+pkS5m1QAy7q8rUkNsdV0C8aL8tQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOEp5OeSankfA6urXLW_fquSMrZ+WYXDtKNacort1UwR=WgxqA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACGkMEt3bZrdqbWtWjSkXvv5v8iCHiN8hkD3T602RZnb6nPd9A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOEp5Odw=eaQWZCXr+U8PipPtO1Avjw-t3gEdKyvNYxuNa5TfQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACGkMEuqXaJxGqC+CLoq7k4XDu+W3E3Kk3WvG-D6tnn2K4ZPNA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOEp5OfB62SQzxMj_GkVD4EM=Z+xf43TPoTZwMbPPa3BsX2ooA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACGkMEu4NdyMoFKbyUGG1aGX+K=ShMZuVuMKYPauEBYz5pxYzA@mail.gmail.com> <CAOEp5Oe7FQQFbO7KDiyBPs1=ox+6rOimOwounTHBuVki2Y3DAg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAOEp5Oe7FQQFbO7KDiyBPs1=ox+6rOimOwounTHBuVki2Y3DAg@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 13 May 2021 16:43:16 -0400
Message-ID: <CA+FuTSfr4gLwx0PaRCB1K=TUE_yawpnWx05U9yO0eQ1B+Pa+bg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] tun: indicate support for USO feature
To:     Yuri Benditovich <yuri.benditovich@daynix.com>
Cc:     Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>, Yan Vugenfirer <yan@daynix.com>,
        davem <davem@davemloft.net>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
        mst <mst@redhat.com>, netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        virtualization <virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
        Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

> > > > > So the question is what to do now:
> > > > > A)
> > > > > Finalize patches for guest TX and respective QEMU patches
> > > > > Prepare RFC patches for guest RX, get ack on them
> > > > > Change the spec
> > > > > Finalize patches for guest RX according to the spec
> > > > >
> > > > > B)
> > > > > Reject the patches for guest TX
> > > > > Prepare RFC patches for everything, get ack on them
> > > > > Change the spec
> > > > > Finalize patches for everything according to the spec
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm for A) of course :)
> > > >
> > > > I'm for B :)
> > > >
> > > > The reasons are:
> > > >
> > > > 1) keep the assumption of tun_set_offload() to simply the logic and
> > > > compatibility
> > > > 2) it's hard or tricky to touch guest TX path only (e.g the
> > > > virtio_net_hdr_from_skb() is called in both RX and TX)
> > >
> > > I suspect there is _some_ misunderstanding here.
> > > I did not touch virtio_net_hdr_from_skb at all.
> > >
> >
> > Typo, actually I meant virtio_net_hdr_to_skb().
> OK.
> 2) tun_get_user() which is guest TX - this is covered
> 3) tap_get_user() which is guest TX - this is covered
> 4) {t}packet_send() which is userspace TX - this is OK, the userspace
> does not have this feature, it will never use USO

What do you mean exactly? I can certainly imagine packet socket users
that could benefit from using udp gso.

When adding support for a new GSO type in virtio_net_hdr, it ideally
is supported by all users of that interface. Alternatively, if some
users do not support the flag, a call that sets the flag has to
(continue to) fail hard, so that we can enable it at a later time.