On Mon, 28 Jul 2025 12:53:01 +0200 Lorenzo Bianconi wrote:

quoted

quoted

I can see why you might think that, but from my perspective, the
xdp_frame *is* the implementation of the mini-SKB concept. We've been
building it incrementally for years. It started as the most minimal
structure possible and has gradually gained more context (e.g. dev_rx,
mem_info/rxq_info, flags, and also uses skb_shared_info with same layout
as SKB).  

My understanding was that just adding all the fields to xdp_frame was
considered too wasteful. Otherwise we would have done something along
those lines ~10 years ago :S  

Hi Jakub,

sorry for the late reply.
I am completely fine to redesign the solution to overcome the problem but I
guess this feature will allow us to improve XDP performance in a common/real
use-case. Let's consider we want to redirect a packet into a veth and then into
a container. Preserving the hw metadata performing XDP_REDIRECT will allow us
to avoid recalculating the checksum creating the skb. This will result in a
very nice performance improvement.
So I guess we should really come up with some idea to add this missing feature.

I don't think the counter-proposal prevents that. As long as veth
supports "set" callbacks the program can transfer the metadata over
to the veth and the second program at veth can communicate them to 
the driver.

Martin mentioned to me that he had proposed in the past that we allow
allocating the skb at the XDP level, if the program needs "skb-level
metadata". That actually seems pretty clean to me.. Was it ever
explored?