Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Daniel Borkmann <daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>> On 8/22/19 9:49 AM, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
>>> On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 2:07 PM Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>>>> On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 4:47 AM Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> iproute2 uses its own bpf loader to load eBPF programs, which has
>>>>>> evolved separately from libbpf. Since we are now standardising on
>>>>>> libbpf, this becomes a problem as iproute2 is slowly accumulating
>>>>>> feature incompatibilities with libbpf-based loaders. In particular,
>>>>>> iproute2 has its own (expanded) version of the map definition struct,
>>>>>> which makes it difficult to write programs that can be loaded with both
>>>>>> custom loaders and iproute2.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This series seeks to address this by converting iproute2 to using libbpf
>>>>>> for all its bpf needs. This version is an early proof-of-concept RFC, to
>>>>>> get some feedback on whether people think this is the right direction.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What this series does is the following:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Updates the libbpf map definition struct to match that of iproute2
>>>>>> (patch 1).
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for taking a stab at unifying libbpf and iproute2 loaders. I'm
>>>>> totally in support of making iproute2 use libbpf to load/initialize
>>>>> BPF programs. But I'm against adding iproute2-specific fields to
>>>>> libbpf's bpf_map_def definitions to support this.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've proposed the plan of extending libbpf's supported features so
>>>>> that it can be used to load iproute2-style BPF programs earlier,
>>>>> please see discussions in [0] and [1].
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, I've seen that discussion, and agree that longer term this is
>>>> probably a better way to do map-in-map definitions.
>>>>
>>>> However, I view your proposal as complementary to this series: we'll
>>>> probably also want the BTF-based definition to work with iproute2, and
>>>> that means iproute2 needs to be ported to libbpf. But iproute2 needs to
>>>> be backwards compatible with the format it supports now, and, well, this
>>>> series is the simplest way to achieve that IMO :)
>>>
>>> Ok, I understand that. But I'd still want to avoid adding extra cruft
>>> to libbpf just for backwards-compatibility with *exact* iproute2
>>> format. Libbpf as a whole is trying to move away from relying on
>>> binary bpf_map_def and into using BTF-defined map definitions, and
>>> this patch series is a step backwards in that regard, that adds,
>>> essentially, already outdated stuff that we'll need to support forever
>>> (I mean those extra fields in bpf_map_def, that will stay there
>>> forever).
>>
>> Agree, adding these extensions for libbpf would be a step backwards
>> compared to using BTF defined map defs.
>>
>>> We've discussed one way to deal with it, IMO, in a cleaner way. It can
>>> be done in few steps:
>>>
>>> 1. I originally wanted BTF-defined map definitions to ignore unknown
>>> fields. It shouldn't be a default mode, but it should be supported
>>> (and of course is very easy to add). So let's add that and let libbpf
>>> ignore unknown stuff.
>>>
>>> 2. Then to let iproute2 loader deal with backwards-compatibility for
>>> libbpf-incompatible bpf_elf_map, we need to "pass-through" all those
>>> fields so that users of libbpf (iproute2 loader, in this case) can
>>> make use of it. The easiest and cleanest way to do this is to expose
>>> BTF ID of a type describing each map entry and let iproute2 process
>>> that in whichever way it sees fit.
>>>
>>> Luckily, bpf_elf_map is compatible in `type` field, which will let
>>> libbpf recognize bpf_elf_map as map definition. All the rest setup
>>> will be done by iproute2, by processing BTF of bpf_elf_map, which will
>>> let it set up map sizes, flags and do all of its map-in-map magic.
>>>
>>> The only additions to libbpf in this case would be a new `__u32
>>> bpf_map__btf_id(struct bpf_map* map);` API.
>>>
>>> I haven't written any code and haven't 100% checked that this will
>>> cover everything, but I think we should try. This will allow to let
>>> users of libbpf do custom stuff with map definitions without having to
>>> put all this extra logic into libbpf itself, which I think is
>>> desirable outcome.
>>
>> Sounds reasonable in general, but all this still has the issue that
>> we're assuming that BTF is /always/ present. Existing object files
>> that would load just fine /today/ but do not have BTF attached won't
>> be handled here. Wouldn't it be more straight forward to allow passing
>> callbacks to the libbpf loader such that if the map section is not
>> found to be bpf_map_def compatible, we rely on external user aka
>> callback to parse the ELF section, handle any non-default libbpf
>> behavior like pinning/retrieving from BPF fs, populate related
>> internal libbpf map data structures and pass control back to libbpf
>> loader afterwards. (Similar callback with prog section name handling
>> for the case where tail call maps get automatically populated.)
>
> Thinking about this some more, I think there are two separate issues
> here:
>
> 1. Do we want libbpf to support the features currently in iproute2 and
> bpf_helpers (i.e., map pinning + reuse, map-in-map definitions, and
> NUMA node placement of maps). IMO the answer to this is yes.
>
> 2. What should the data format be for BPF programs to signal that they
> want to use those features? Here, the longer-term answer is BTF-based
> map definitions, but we still want iproute2 to be backwards
> compatible.
>
>
> So how about I revise this patch series to implement the *features* (I
> already implemented map-in-map and numa nodes[0], so that is sorta
> already done), but instead of extending the bpf_map_def struct, I just
> expose callbacks that will allow programs to fill in internal-to-libbpf
> data structures with the required information. Then, once the BTF-based
> map definition does land, that can simply define default callbacks that
> uses the BTF information to fill in those same internal data structures?
>
> This would mean no extending bpf_map_def, and relaxing the current
> libbpf restriction on extending bpf_map_def.
>
> The drawback of this approach is that it does nothing to combat
> fragmentation: People building their own loaders can still reimplement
> different semantics for map defs, leading to programs that are tied to a
> particular loader. So this would only work if we really believe BTF can
> save us from this. I don't feel competent to comment on this just yet,
> but thought I'd mention it :)
>
> -Toke
[0] was supposed to be a reference to
https://github.com/tohojo/libbpf/tree/iproute2-compat
