On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 at 19:03, Jakub Kicinski
<jakub.kicinski@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 11:04:36 +0200, Björn Töpel wrote:
> > On Sat, 1 Jun 2019 at 21:57, Jakub Kicinski
> > <jakub.kicinski@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, 31 May 2019 19:18:17 +0000, Saeed Mahameed wrote:
> > > > > + if (!bpf_op || flags & XDP_FLAGS_SKB_MODE)
> > > > > + mode = XDP_FLAGS_SKB_MODE;
> > > > > +
> > > > > + curr_mode = dev_xdp_current_mode(dev);
> > > > > +
> > > > > + if (!offload && curr_mode && (mode ^ curr_mode) &
> > > > > + (XDP_FLAGS_DRV_MODE | XDP_FLAGS_SKB_MODE)) {
> > > >
> > > > if i am reading this correctly this is equivalent to :
> > > >
> > > > if (!offload && (curre_mode != mode))
> > > > offlad is false then curr_mode and mode must be DRV or GENERIC ..
> > >
> > > Naw, if curr_mode is not set, i.e. nothing installed now, we don't care
> > > about the diff.
> > >
> > > > better if you keep bitwise operations for actual bitmasks, mode and
> > > > curr_mode are not bitmask, they can hold one value each .. according to
> > > > your logic..
> > >
> > > Well, they hold one bit each, whether one bit is a bitmap perhaps is
> > > disputable? :)
> > >
> > > I think the logic is fine.
> > >
> >
> > Hmm, but changing to:
> >
> > if (!offload && curr_mode && mode != curr_mode)
> >
> > is equal, and to Saeed's point, clearer. I'll go that route in a v3.
>
> Sorry, you're right, the flags get mangled before they get here, so
> yeah, this condition should work. Confusingly.
>
> > > What happened to my request to move the change in behaviour for
> > > disabling to a separate patch, tho, Bjorn? :)
> >
> > Actually, I left that out completely. This patch doesn't change the
> > behavior. After I realized how the flags *should* be used, I don't
> > think my v1 change makes sense anymore. My v1 patch was to give an
> > error if you tried to disable, say generic if drv was enabled via
> > "auto detect/no flags". But this is catched by looking at the flags.
> >
> > What I did, however, was moving the flags check into change_fd so that
> > the driver doesn't have to do the check. E.g. the Intel drivers didn't
> > do correct checking of flags.
>
> Ugh. Could you please rewrite the conditions to make the fd >= check
> consistently the outside if? Also could you add extack to this:
>
The reason I moved the if-statement (checking if we're mixing
drv/skb), is because I'd like to catch the no-op (e.g. xdpdrv active
and calling xdpgeneric off) early (the return 0, under the if (fd >=
check).
> + if (!offload && dev_xdp_query(dev, mode) &&
> + !xdp_prog_flags_ok(dev->xdp_flags, flags, extack))
> + return -EBUSY;
>
> It's unclear what it's doing.
This checks whether the flags have changed, pulling out the logic from
the drivers. xdp_prog_flags_ok adds to extack, resuing the flags_ok
function. The xdp_attachment_flags_ok OTOH is not necessary anymore,
and should be further cleaned up. I'll address this and make the this
clause more clear.
Björn
