Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> > But basically, why can't you use BPF skeleton?
>>
>> Couple of reasons:
>>
>> - I don't need any of the other features of the skeleton
>> - I don't want to depend on bpftool in the build process
>> - I don't want to embed the BPF bytecode into the C object
>
> Just curious, how are you intending to use global variables. Are you
> restricting to a single global var (a struct probably), so it's easier
> to work with it? Or are you resolving all the variables' offsets
> manually? It's really inconvenient to work with global variables
> without skeleton, which is why I'm curious.
Yeah, there's a single:
static volatile const struct xdp_dispatcher_config conf = {};
in the BPF file. Which is defined as:
struct xdp_dispatcher_config {
__u8 num_progs_enabled;
__u32 chain_call_actions[MAX_DISPATCHER_ACTIONS];
};
>> > Also, application can already find that map by looking at name.
>>
>> Yes, it can find the map, but it can't access the data. But I guess I
>> could just add a getter for that. Just figured this was easier to
>> consume; but I can see why it might impose restrictions on future
>> changes, so I'll send a v2 with such a map-level getter instead.
>
> Sounds good, I'll go review v2 now.
Great, thanks!
-Toke
