[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87lekxsnpo.fsf@toke.dk>
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2023 15:13:07 +0100
From: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>
To: Larysa Zaremba <larysa.zaremba@...el.com>,
Jesper Dangaard Brouer <jbrouer@...hat.com>
Cc: Alexander Lobakin <aleksander.lobakin@...el.com>,
brouer@...hat.com, bpf@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com>, martin.lau@...nel.org,
ast@...nel.org, daniel@...earbox.net, alexandr.lobakin@...el.com,
xdp-hints@...-project.net
Subject: Re: [xdp-hints] Re: [PATCH bpf-next V1] xdp: bpf_xdp_metadata use
NODEV for no device support
Larysa Zaremba <larysa.zaremba@...el.com> writes:
> On Wed, Feb 15, 2023 at 06:50:10PM +0100, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
>>
>> On 15/02/2023 18.11, Alexander Lobakin wrote:
>> > From: Zaremba, Larysa <larysa.zaremba@...el.com>
>> > Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2023 16:45:18 +0100
>> >
>> > > On Wed, Feb 15, 2023 at 11:09:36AM +0100, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
>> > > > With our XDP-hints kfunc approach, where individual drivers overload the
>> > > > default implementation, it can be hard for API users to determine
>> > > > whether or not the current device driver have this kfunc available.
>> > > >
>> > > > Change the default implementations to use an errno (ENODEV), that
>> > > > drivers shouldn't return, to make it possible for BPF runtime to
>> > > > determine if bpf kfunc for xdp metadata isn't implemented by driver.
>> > >
>> > > I think it diverts ENODEV usage from its original purpose too much.
>>
>> Can you suggest a errno that is a better fit?
>
> EOPNOTSUPP fits just fine.
An alternative to changing the return code of the default kfuncs is also
to just not have the driver functions themselves use that error code? :)
>> > > Maybe providing information in dmesg would be a better solution?
>>
>> IMHO we really don't want to print any information in this code path, as
>> this is being executed as part of the BPF-prog. This will lead to
>> unfortunate latency issues. Also considering the packet rates this need
>> to operate at.
>
> I meant printing messages at bpf program load time...
> When driver functions are patched-in, you have all the information you may need
> to inform user, if the default implementation for a particular function is used
> instead.
If you dump the byte code with bpftool (using `bpftool prog dump xlated`), the
name of the function being called will be in the output, which is also a
way to detect if the driver kfunc is being called...
-Toke
Powered by blists - more mailing lists