[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200326194050.d5cjetvhzlhyiesb@ast-mbp>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2020 12:40:50 -0700
From: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>,
Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>,
John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>,
Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@...com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>,
Lorenz Bauer <lmb@...udflare.com>,
Andrey Ignatov <rdna@...com>,
Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 1/4] xdp: Support specifying expected existing
program when attaching XDP
On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 10:13:23PM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> >
> > Now for XDP. It has same flawed model. And even if it seems to you
> > that it's not a big issue, and even if Jakub thinks we are trying to
> > solve non-existing problem, it is a real problem and a real concern
> > from people that have to support XDP in production with many
>
> More than happy to talk to those folks, and see the tickets.
Jakub, you repeatedly demonstrated lack of understanding of what
bpf_link is despite multiple attempts from me, Andrii and others.
At this point I don't believe in your good intent.
Your repeated attacks on BPF in every thread are out of control.
I kept ignoring your insults for long time, but I cannot do this anymore.
Please find other threads to contribute your opinions.
They are not welcomed here.
> > well-meaning developers developing BPF applications independently.
>
> There is one single program which can be attached to the XDP hook,
> the "everybody attaches their program model" does not apply.
>
> TW agent should just listen on netlink notifications to see if someone
> replaced its program.
This is dumbest idea I've heard in a long time.
May be kernel shouldn't have done ACLs and did notifications only
when file is accessed by a task that shouldn't have accessed it?
Same level of craziness.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists