On 3/3/20 12:12 AM, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
I can see the motivation for this abstraction in particular for tracing,
but given
the goal of bpf_link is to formalize and make the various program
attachment types
more uniform, how is this going to solve e.g. the tc/BPF case? There is
no guarantee
that while you create a link with the prog attached to cls_bpf that
someone else is
going to replace that qdisc underneath you, and hence you end up with
the same case
as if you would have only pinned the program itself (and not a link). So
bpf_link
then gives a wrong impression that something is still attached and
active while it
is not. What is the plan for these types?
TC is not easy to handle, right, but I don't see a 'wrong impression'
part. The link will keep the program attached to qdisc. The admin
may try to remove qdisc for netdev, but that's a separate issue.
Same thing with xdp. The link will keep xdp program attached,
but admin may do ifconfig down and no packets will be flowing.
Similar with cgroups. The link will keep prog attached to a cgroup,
but admin can still do rmdir and cgroup will be in 'dying' state.
In case of tracing there is no intermediate entity between programs
and the kernel. In case of networking there are layers.
Netdevs, qdiscs, etc. May be dev_hold is a way to go.
