Re: [PATCH v6 04/12] net/mlx4_en: add support for fast rx drop bpf program

[Or Gerlitz <gerlitz.or@gmail.com>]

On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 5:15 AM, Brenden Blanco <bblanco@plumgrid.com> wrote:
> Add support for the BPF_PROG_TYPE_XDP hook in mlx4 driver.
>
> In tc/socket bpf programs, helpers linearize skb fragments as needed
> when the program touchs the packet data. However, in the pursuit of

nit, for the next version touchs --> touches

> speed, XDP programs will not be allowed to use these slower functions,
> especially if it involves allocating an skb.


[...]

> @@ -835,6 +838,34 @@ int mlx4_en_process_rx_cq(struct net_device *dev, struct mlx4_en_cq *cq, int bud
>                 l2_tunnel = (dev->hw_enc_features & NETIF_F_RXCSUM) &&
>                         (cqe->vlan_my_qpn & cpu_to_be32(MLX4_CQE_L2_TUNNEL));
>
> +               /* A bpf program gets first chance to drop the packet. It may
> +                * read bytes but not past the end of the frag.
> +                */
> +               if (prog) {
> +                       struct xdp_buff xdp;
> +                       dma_addr_t dma;
> +                       u32 act;
> +
> +                       dma = be64_to_cpu(rx_desc->data[0].addr);
> +                       dma_sync_single_for_cpu(priv->ddev, dma,
> +                                               priv->frag_info[0].frag_size,
> +                                               DMA_FROM_DEVICE);
> +
> +                       xdp.data = page_address(frags[0].page) +
> +                                                       frags[0].page_offset;
> +                       xdp.data_end = xdp.data + length;
> +
> +                       act = bpf_prog_run_xdp(prog, &xdp);
> +                       switch (act) {
> +                       case XDP_PASS:
> +                               break;
> +                       default:
> +                               bpf_warn_invalid_xdp_action(act);
> +                       case XDP_DROP:
> +                               goto next;
> +                       }
> +               }


(probably a nit too, but wanted to make sure we don't miss something
here) is the default case preceding the DROP one in purpose? any
special reason to do that?