[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87v9kki523.fsf@toke.dk>
Date: Mon, 25 May 2020 14:15:32 +0200
From: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>
To: David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>, David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org
Cc: davem@...emloft.net, kuba@...nel.org, brouer@...hat.com,
daniel@...earbox.net, john.fastabend@...il.com, ast@...nel.org,
kafai@...com, songliubraving@...com, yhs@...com, andriin@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC bpf-next 0/4] bpf: Add support for XDP programs in DEVMAPs
David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com> writes:
> On 5/22/20 9:59 AM, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
>> David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org> writes:
>>
>>> Implementation of Daniel's proposal for allowing DEVMAP entries to be
>>> a device index, program id pair. Daniel suggested an fd to specify the
>>> program, but that seems odd to me that you insert the value as an fd, but
>>> read it back as an id since the fd can be closed.
>>
>> While I can be sympathetic to the argument that it seems odd, every
>> other API uses FD for insert and returns ID, so why make it different
>> here? Also, the choice has privilege implications, since the CAP_BPF
>> series explicitly makes going from ID->FD a more privileged operation
>> than just querying the ID.
>>
>
> I do not like the model where the kernel changes the value the user
> pushed down.
Yet it's what we do in every other interface where a user needs to
supply a program, including in prog array maps. So let's not create a
new inconsistent interface here...
-Toke
Powered by blists - more mailing lists