[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20181107123231.6d2f4782@cakuba.netronome.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2018 12:32:31 -0800
From: Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>
To: Quentin Monnet <quentin.monnet@...ronome.com>
Cc: Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, ast@...nel.org,
daniel@...earbox.net, shuah@...nel.org, guro@...com,
jiong.wang@...ronome.com, bhole_prashant_q7@....ntt.co.jp,
john.fastabend@...il.com, jbenc@...hat.com,
treeze.taeung@...il.com, yhs@...com, osk@...com,
sandipan@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 2/2] bpftool: support loading flow dissector
On Wed, 7 Nov 2018 20:08:53 +0000, Quentin Monnet wrote:
> > + err = bpf_obj_pin(bpf_program__fd(prog), pinfile);
> > + if (err) {
> > + p_err("failed to pin program %s",
> > + bpf_program__title(prog, false));
> > + goto err_close_obj;
> > + }
>
> I don't have the same opinion as Jakub for pinning :). I was hoping we
> could also load additional programs (for tail calls) for
> non-flow_dissector programs. Could this be an occasion to update the
> code in that direction?
Do you mean having the bpftool construct an array for tail calling
automatically when loading an object? Or do a "mass pin" of all
programs in an object file?
I'm not convinced about this strategy of auto assembling a tail call
array by assuming that a flow dissector object carries programs for
protocols in order (apart from the main program which doesn't have to
be first, for some reason).
Powered by blists - more mailing lists