[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <15bdc24c-fe85-479a-83fe-921da04cb6b1@iogearbox.net>
Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2022 00:02:57 +0200
From: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
To: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>,
Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>
Cc: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@...il.com>,
Joanne Koong <joannelkoong@...il.com>,
bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>,
Vlad Buslov <vladbu@...dia.com>,
Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>,
netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 0/7] Add bpf_link based TC-BPF API
On 6/10/22 11:52 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 10, 2022 at 1:41 PM Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Except we'd want to also support multiple programs on different
>>>> priorities? I don't think requiring a libxdp-like dispatcher to achieve
>>>> this is a good idea if we can just have it be part of the API from the
>>>> get-go...
>>>
>>> Yes, it will be multi-prog to avoid a situation where dispatcher is needed.
>>
>> Awesome! :)
>
> Let's keep it simple to start.
> Priorities or anything fancy can be added later if really necessary.
> Otherwise, I'm afraid, we will go into endless bikeshedding
> or the best priority scheme.
>
> A link list of bpf progs like cls_bpf with the same semantics as
> cls_bpf_classify.
> With prog->exts_integrated always true and no classid, since this
> concept doesn't apply.
Yes, semantics must be that TC_ACT_UNSPEC continues in the list and
everything else as return code would terminate the evaluation.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists