On Sat, Mar 23, 2019 at 09:05:31AM -0700, Stanislav Fomichev wrote: > On 03/22, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 06:19:57PM -0700, Stanislav Fomichev wrote: > > > Are we ok with breaking api in this case? I'm all in on removing this > > > extra information. We can always put it back if somebody complains (and > > > manually parse in eth_get_headlen case). > > > > Fine. That seems to be the only way forward to clean it all up. > > Could you submit patch 1 to bpf tree disallowing vlan fields? > > Patch 3 looks like candidate as well? > SGTM, will do. Let me also spend some time and do a simple test for > the vlan case, to make sure I didn't miss something important. > One question here though: would I need to wait for bpf and bpf-next > to re-merge to continues the series? Or we can cherry-pick those > patches to bpf-next as well (and git will work it out during the > merge)? > > > > We can still have protocol, because in both skb/skb-less cases we have > > > it. > > > > proto can work in both cases, but is it needed ? Does program benefit from it? > > The kernel side burns extra bytes by copying it and extra branches to handle it. > > May be drop it as well? > I feel like the program benefits from it, there is no need to go back and > re-parse that (and in the skb case, this data is already pulled). I was > also thinking about re-purposing flow_keys->n_proto for that (instead > of skb->protocol), so it functions as input and output, maybe that's a > more clear way to do it. Are you saying that skb-less and skb flow dissector progs are looking at different positions into the packet ? In case of with-skb it's already after eth header was pulled? In such case skb-less should be different program type or both should point at the same point.
