netdev - Re: [PATCH 0/2] tools: bpftool: add net (un)load command to load XDP

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20190731015238.3kq3r7rlascv7tzs@ast-mbp>
Date:   Tue, 30 Jul 2019 18:52:40 -0700
From:   Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>
Cc:     "Daniel T. Lee" <danieltimlee@...il.com>,
        Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>,
        David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>,
        Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] tools: bpftool: add net (un)load command to load XDP

On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 06:21:44PM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > > Duplicating the same features in bpftool will only diminish the
> > > incentive for moving iproute2 to libbpf.   
> > 
> > not at all. why do you think so?
> 
> Because iproute2's BPF has fallen behind so the simplest thing is to
> just contribute to bpftool. But iproute2 is the tool set for Linux
> networking, we can't let it bit rot :(

where were you when a lot of libbpf was copy pasted into iproute2 ?!
Now it diverged a lot and it's difficult to move iproute2 back to the main
train which is libbpf.
Same thing with at least 5 copy-pastes of samples/bpf/bpf_load.c
that spawned a bunch of different bpf loaders.

> IMHO vaguely competent users of Linux networking will know ip link.
> If they are not vaguely competent, they should not attach XDP programs
> to interfaces by hand...

I'm a prime example of moderately competent linux user who
doesn't know iproute2. I'm not joking.
I don't know tc syntax and always use my cheat sheet of ip/tc commands
to do anything.

> > 
> > bpftool must be able to introspect every aspect of bpf programming.
> > That includes detaching and attaching anywhere.
> > Anyone doing 'bpftool p s' should be able to switch off particular
> > prog id without learning ten different other tools.
> 
> I think the fact that we already have an implementation in iproute2,
> which is at the risk of bit rot is more important to me that the
> hypothetical scenario where everyone knows to just use bpftool (for
> XDP, for TC it's still iproute2 unless there's someone crazy enough 
> to reimplement the TC functionality :))

I think you're missing the point that iproute2 is still necessary
to configure it.
bpftool should be able to attach/detach from anything.
But configuring that thing (whether it's cgroup or tc/xdp) is
a job of corresponding apis and tools.

> I'm not sure we can settle our differences over email :)
> I have tremendous respect for all the maintainers I CCed here, 
> if nobody steps up to agree with me I'll concede the bpftool net
> battle entirely :)

we can keep arguing forever. Respect to ease-of-use only comes
from the pain of operational experience. I don't think I can
convey that pain in the email either.