[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <55172844.7070108@iogearbox.net>
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2015 23:16:36 +0100
From: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
To: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...mgrid.com>,
He Kuang <hekuang@...wei.com>
CC: wangnan0@...wei.com, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] bpf: Suggestion on bpf syscall interface
On 03/28/2015 06:21 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On 3/28/15 4:36 AM, He Kuang wrote:
>> Hi, Alexei
>>
>> In our end-end IO module project, we use bpf maps to record
>> configurations. According to current bpf syscall interface, we
>> should specify map_fd to lookup/update bpf maps, so we are
>> restricted to do config in the same user program.
>
> you can pass map_fd and prog_fd from one process to another via normal
> scm_rights mechanism.
+1, I've just tried that out in the context of a different work and
works like a charm.
>> My suggestion is to export this kind of operations to sysfs, so
>> we can load&attach bpf progs and config it seperately. We
>> implement this feature in our demo project. What's your opinion
>> on this?
>
> Eventually we may use single sysfs file for lsmod-like listings, but I
> definitely don't want to create parallel interface to maps via sysfs.
Yes, that would be a bad design decision. Btw, even more lightweight
for kernel-side would be to just implement .show_fdinfo() for the anon
indoes on the map/prog store and have some meta information exported
from there. You can then grab that via /proc/<pid>/fdinfo/<fd>, I
would consider such a thing a slow-path operation anyway, and you would
also get the app info using it for free.
> It's way too expensive and not really suitable for binary key/values.
+1
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists