[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAEf4BzZVxTGM9mDoHMv478vQjV6Hmf_ts50=ABXkP4GxAG85eg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2020 13:31:17 -0700
From: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>
To: David Ahern <dsahern@...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 v3 bpf-next 2/9] bpf, xdp: maintain info on attached XDP
BPF programs in net_device
On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 12:01 PM David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On 7/15/20 10:55 PM, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> > Instead of delegating to drivers, maintain information about which BPF
> > programs are attached in which XDP modes (generic/skb, driver, or hardware)
> > locally in net_device. This effectively obsoletes XDP_QUERY_PROG command.
> >
> > Such re-organization simplifies existing code already. But it also allows to
> > further add bpf_link-based XDP attachments without drivers having to know
> > about any of this at all, which seems like a good setup.
> > XDP_SETUP_PROG/XDP_SETUP_PROG_HW are just low-level commands to driver to
> > install/uninstall active BPF program. All the higher-level concerns about
> > prog/link interaction will be contained within generic driver-agnostic logic.
> >
> > All the XDP_QUERY_PROG calls to driver in dev_xdp_uninstall() were removed.
> > It's not clear for me why dev_xdp_uninstall() were passing previous prog_flags
> > when resetting installed programs. That seems unnecessary, plus most drivers
> > don't populate prog_flags anyways. Having XDP_SETUP_PROG vs XDP_SETUP_PROG_HW
> > should be enough of an indicator of what is required of driver to correctly
> > reset active BPF program. dev_xdp_uninstall() is also generalized as an
> > iteration over all three supported mode.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@...com>
> > ---
> > include/linux/netdevice.h | 17 +++-
> > net/core/dev.c | 158 +++++++++++++++++++++-----------------
>
> Similar to my comment on a v1 patch, this change is doing multiple
> things that really should be split into 2 patches - one moving code
> around and the second making the change you want. As is the patch is
> difficult to properly review.
>
You mean xdp_uninstall? In patch 1 leave it as three separate
sections, but switch to different querying. And then in a separate
patch do a loop?
Alright, I'll split that up as well. But otherwise I don't really see
much more opportunities to split it.
> Given that you need a v4 anyways, can you split this patch into 2?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists