# Re: \[PATCH v3 net-next 3/6\] net: Add SW fallback infrastructure for offloaded sockets

- From: Marcelo Ricardo Leitner \<marcelo.leitner@gmail.com\>
- Date: 2017-12-19 15:05:50 
- List: netdev
- Page: https://ratatoskr.run/netdev/2017/12/11077214
- Thread: https://ratatoskr.run/netdev/2017/12/11077008/t.md

```text
On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 07:51:02AM +0000, Ilya Lesokhin wrote:
> On Monday, December 18, 2017 9:18 PM, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner wrote:
> 
> > > +
> > > +	if (sk && sk_fullsock(sk) && sk->sk_offload_check)
> > 
> > Isn't this going to hurt the fast path, checking for sk fields here?
> > 
> 
> We do add code to the fast path but it seems unavoidable if you want to have SW fallback.
> The XFRM device offload also does that
> http://elixir.free-electrons.com/linux/v4.14.7/source/net/core/dev.c#L3058

Right, although a bit different. It's accessing skb->sp and not the
socket and depending on how compiler is doing things, the check
http://elixir.free-electrons.com/linux/v4.14.7/source/net/xfrm/xfrm_device.c#L32
will help in some cases.

But more importantly, all the above only exists if CONFIG_XFRM_OFFLOAD
is enabled.

> 
> The check can be optimized but I didn't want to do that before I saw that it's an issue.
> I'm also not sure what the correct solution is.
> I don't like that fact that each "stateful protocol" we offload requires its own check. 
> We need to think if we can find a generic way of doing it.
> 
> Perhaps we can hold the expected netdev somewhere in the SKB and only if we don't
> Go out of the expected netdev go to a slow path that does a check for each protocol.

This could be a good switch, yes.

Thanks,
Marcelo
```