netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf-next 2/6] libbpf: move bpf_helpers.h, bpf

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: <875zl7txr2.fsf@toke.dk>
Date:   Wed, 02 Oct 2019 09:25:21 +0200
From:   Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>
To:     Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>
Cc:     Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@...com>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
        Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...com>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Kernel Team <kernel-team@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 2/6] libbpf: move bpf_helpers.h, bpf_endian.h into libbpf

Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com> writes:

> On Tue, Oct 1, 2019 at 12:18 PM John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com> wrote:
>>
>> Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
>> >
>> > > +struct bpf_map_def {
>> > > +   unsigned int type;
>> > > +   unsigned int key_size;
>> > > +   unsigned int value_size;
>> > > +   unsigned int max_entries;
>> > > +   unsigned int map_flags;
>> > > +   unsigned int inner_map_idx;
>> > > +   unsigned int numa_node;
>> > > +};
>> >
>> > Didn't we agree on no new bpf_map_def ABI in libbpf, and that all
>> > additions should be BTF-based?
>> >
>> > -Toke
>> >
>>
>> We use libbpf on pre BTF kernels so in this case I think it makes
>> sense to add these fields. Having inner_map_idx there should allow
>> us to remove some other things we have sitting around.
>
> We had a discussion about supporting non-BTF and non-standard BPF map
> definition before and it's still on my TODO list to go and do a proof
> of concept how that can look like and what libbpf changes we need to
> make. Right now libbpf doesn't support those new fields anyway, so we
> shouldn't add them to public API.

This was the thread; the context was libbpf support in iproute2:
https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20190820114706.18546-1-toke@redhat.com/

Basically, we agreed that rather than adding more fields to bpf_map_def
in libbpf itself, we'd support BTF definitions natively, and provide
applications the right callbacks to support custom formats as they see
fit.

-Toke