netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf-next 1/3] libbpf: xsk: use 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: <33b54a25-a35a-6991-6831-f551670f5556@intel.com>
Date:   Tue, 16 Feb 2021 10:15:53 +0100
From:   Björn Töpel <bjorn.topel@...el.com>
To:     Maciej Fijalkowski <maciej.fijalkowski@...el.com>,
        Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>
Cc:     daniel@...earbox.net, ast@...nel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, andrii@...nel.org,
        magnus.karlsson@...el.com, ciara.loftus@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 1/3] libbpf: xsk: use bpf_link

On 2021-02-16 03:01, Maciej Fijalkowski wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 15, 2021 at 08:35:29PM +0100, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
>> Björn Töpel <bjorn.topel@...el.com> writes:

[...]

>>>
>>> I'd say it's depending on the libbpf 1.0/libxdp merge timeframe. If
>>> we're months ahead, then I'd really like to see this in libbpf until the
>>> merge. However, I'll leave that for Magnus/you to decide!
> 
> WDYM by libbpf 1.0/libxdp merge? I glanced through thread and I saw that
> John was also not aware of that. Not sure where it was discussed?
>

Oh, right. Yeah, we've had some offlist discussions about moving the
AF_XDP functionality from libbpf to libxdp in the libbpf 1.0 timeframe.

> If you're saying 'merge', then is libxdp going to be a part of kernel or
> as an AF-XDP related guy I would be forced to include yet another
> repository in the BPF developer toolchain? :<
>

The AF_XDP functionality of libbpf will be part of libxdp, which is not
in the kernel tree. libxdp depend on libbpf, which includes the core BPF
functionality. For AF_XDP this is a good thing IMO. libxdp includes more
higher lever abstractions than libbpf, which is more aligned to AF_XDP.

Yes, that would mean that you would get another dependency for AF_XDP,
and one that is not in the kernel tree. For most *users* this is not a
problem, in fact it might be easier to consume and to contribute for
most users. We can't optimize just for the kernel hackers. ;-)

Björn

[...]