netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf-next 5/5] libbpf: add selftests for TC-BPF API

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]

Date:   Sun, 28 Mar 2021 18:26:02 -0700
From:   Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
To:     Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>
Cc:     Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@...il.com>, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
        brouer@...hat.com, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
        Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>,
        Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
        KP Singh <kpsingh@...nel.org>, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Jesper Dangaard Brouer <hawk@...nel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 5/5] libbpf: add selftests for TC-BPF API

On Sat, Mar 27, 2021 at 04:17:16PM +0100, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
> Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com> writes:
> 
> > On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 05:30:03PM +0530, Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi wrote:
> >> This adds some basic tests for the low level bpf_tc_* API and its
> >> bpf_program__attach_tc_* wrapper on top.
> >
> > *_block() apis from patch 3 and 4 are not covered by this selftest.
> > Why were they added ? And how were they tested?
> >
> > Pls trim your cc. bpf@...r and netdev@...r would have been enough.
> >
> > My main concern with this set is that it adds netlink apis to libbpf while
> > we already agreed to split xdp manipulation pieces out of libbpf.
> > It would be odd to add tc apis now only to split them later.
> 
> We're not removing the ability to attach an XDP program via netlink from
> libxdp, though. This is the equivalent for TC: the minimum support to
> attach a program, and if you want to do more, you pull in another
> library or roll your own.
> 
> I'm fine with cutting out more stuff and making this even more minimal
> (e.g., remove the block stuff and only support attach/detach on ifaces),
> but we figured we'd err on the side of including too much and getting
> some feedback from others on which bits are the essential ones to keep,
> and which can be dropped.

This is up to you. I'm trying to understand the motivation for *_block() apis.
I'm not taking a stance for/against them.

> > I think it's better to start with new library for tc/xdp and have
> > libbpf as a dependency on that new lib.
> > For example we can add it as subdir in tools/lib/bpf/.
> 
> I agree for the higher-level stuff (though I'm not sure what that would
> be for TC), but right now TC programs are the only ones that cannot be
> attached by libbpf, which is annoying; that's what we're trying to fix.

Sure. I wasn't saying that there is no place for these APIs in libbpf+.
Just that existing libbpf is already became a kitchen sink of features
that users are not going to use like static linking.
tc-api was a straw that broke the camel's back.
I think we must move static linking and skeleton out of libbpf before
the next release.