HackerTrans
トップ新着トレンドコメント過去質問紹介求人

Trev123

3 カルマ登録 10 か月前

投稿

[untitled]

1 ポイント·投稿者 Trev123·10 か月前·0 コメント

[untitled]

1 ポイント·投稿者 Trev123·10 か月前·0 コメント

[untitled]

1 ポイント·投稿者 Trev123·10 か月前·0 コメント

[untitled]

1 ポイント·投稿者 Trev123·10 か月前·0 コメント

コメント

Trev123
·15 時間前·議論
It's fun to see how people end up using eBPF, but it feels like this was an LLM generated post (my apologies if I'm mistaken). It doesn't feel as fun reading a post generated by an LLM - it often feels more long winded, many short sentences and over use of certain phrases.
Trev123
·8 か月前·議論
This post hits close to home, I've run into all of these myself.

On checksums: Incremental updates are the path of least pain only if the packet’s checksum is valid and not CHECKSUM_PARTIAL. With modern offloads (TSO/GSO/GRO/checksum offload), the checksum visible to XDP is often zero/garbage because the NIC fills it later. In practice, either disable offloads for that traffic or recompute from scratch with bpf_csum_diff() plus bpf_l3_csum_replace() / bpf_l4_csum_replace().

The verifier: This is a fun one, when you make a small change and suddenly the verifier won't allow it.

And the moment you start modifying packets too much yourself, you're on the hook for everything the kernel used to do for you.

I once went down the rabbit hole of building a minimal TCP stack, and the experience was exactly as you'd expect. Getting to 95% done felt quick, but that last 5% was a nightmare (if 100% is even achievable)