[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5ee2c8e7-1ced-6103-99fa-213718bbb601@iogearbox.net>
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2021 13:26:48 +0200
From: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
To: Shaun Crampton <shaun@...era.io>
Cc: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@...il.com>, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
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>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v3 2/3] libbpf: add low level TC-BPF API
On 4/22/21 11:47 AM, Shaun Crampton wrote:
>> Nope, just get it from the prog itself.
>
> Looks like the API returns the prog ID, so from that we can look up the prog
> and then get its tag? If so that meets our needs. Alternatively, if
> the API allows
> for atomic replacement of a BPF program with another, that'd also work for us.
Both is the case: from prog ID you can already retrieve that same tag, and progs
can be atomically replaced with the current API code.
Exposing the tag in here otherwise feels just odd/wrong from a design PoV, explain
that to a user of this API on /why/ such field is in the tc API when it already
can be retrieved via bpf_prog_get_info_by_fd(), as in, what is so special on this
field in the tc API here (aside from legacy reasons when there was no mentioned
helper [which we don't need to support given it dates way too far back]) ... I
cannot. ;-) Hence lets drop it from there.
Thanks,
Daniel
Powered by blists - more mailing lists