[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <8e6d24fa-d3ef-af20-b2a5-dbdc9a284f6d@iogearbox.net>
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2021 00:40:06 +0200
From: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
To: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>,
Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@...il.com>
Cc: bpf@...r.kernel.org, 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 v4 2/3] libbpf: add low level TC-BPF API
On 4/28/21 12:36 AM, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
> Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net> writes:
[...]
>> Small addendum:
>>
>> DECLARE_LIBBPF_OPTS(bpf_tc_hook, hook, .ifindex = 42, .which = BPF_TC_INGRESS|BPF_TC_EGRESS);
>>
>> err = bpf_tc_hook_create(&hook);
>> [...]
>>
>> ... is also possible, of course, and then both bpf_tc_hook_{create,destroy}() are symmetric.
>
> It should be allowed, but it wouldn't actually make any difference which
> combination of TC_INGRESS and TC_EGRESS you specify, as long as one of
> them is set, right? I.e., we just attach the clsact qdisc in both
> cases...
Yes, that is correct, for the bpf_tc_hook_create() whether you pass in BPF_TC_INGRESS,
BPF_TC_EGRESS or BPF_TC_INGRESS|BPF_TC_EGRESS, you'll end up creating clsact qdisc in
either of the three cases. Only the bpf_tc_hook_destroy() differs between all of them.
Thanks,
Daniel
Powered by blists - more mailing lists