Björn Töpel <bjorn.topel@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On 2021-01-20 18:29, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
>> Björn Töpel <bjorn.topel@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>
>>> On 2021-01-20 15:54, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
>>>> Björn Töpel <bjorn.topel@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2021-01-20 13:50, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
>>>>>> Björn Töpel <bjorn.topel@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h b/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
>>>>>>> index c001766adcbc..bbc7d9a57262 100644
>>>>>>> --- a/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
>>>>>>> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
>>>>>>> @@ -3836,6 +3836,12 @@ union bpf_attr {
>>>>>>> * Return
>>>>>>> * A pointer to a struct socket on success or NULL if the file is
>>>>>>> * not a socket.
>>>>>>> + *
>>>>>>> + * long bpf_redirect_xsk(struct xdp_buff *xdp_md, u64 action)
>>>>>>> + * Description
>>>>>>> + * Redirect to the registered AF_XDP socket.
>>>>>>> + * Return
>>>>>>> + * **XDP_REDIRECT** on success, otherwise the action parameter is returned.
>>>>>>> */
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think it would be better to make the second argument a 'flags'
>>>>>> argument and make values > XDP_TX invalid (like we do in
>>>>>> bpf_xdp_redirect_map() now). By allowing any value as return you lose
>>>>>> the ability to turn it into a flags argument later...
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, but that adds a run-time check. I prefer this non-checked version,
>>>>> even though it is a bit less futureproof.
>>>>
>>>> That...seems a bit short-sighted? :)
>>>> Can you actually see a difference in your performance numbers?
>>>>
>>>
>>> I would rather add an additional helper *if* we see the need for flags,
>>> instead of paying for that upfront. For me, BPF is about being able to
>>> specialize, and not having one call with tons of checks.
>>
>> I get that, I'm just pushing back because omitting a 'flags' argument is
>> literally among the most frequent reasons for having to replace a
>> syscall (see e.g., [0]) instead of extending it. And yeah, I do realise
>> that the performance implications are different for XDP than for
>> syscalls, but maintainability of the API is also important; it's all a
>> tradeoff. This will be the third redirect helper variant for XDP and I'd
>> hate for the fourth one to have to be bpf_redirect_xsk_flags() because
>> it did turn out to be needed...
>>
>> (One potential concrete reason for this: I believe Magnus was talking
>> about an API that would allow a BPF program to redirect a packet into
>> more than one socket (cloning it in the process), or to redirect to a
>> socket+another target. How would you do that with this new helper?)
>>
>> [0] https://lwn.net/Articles/585415/
>>
>
> I have a bit of different view. One of the really nice parts about BPF
> is exactly specialization. A user can tailor the kernel do a specific
> thing. I *don't* see an issue with yet another helper, if that is needed
> in the future. I think that is better than bloated helpers trying to
> cope for all scenarios. I don't mean we should just add helpers all over
> the place, but I do see more lightly on adding helpers, than adding
> syscalls.
>
> Elaborating a bit on this: many device drivers try to handle all the
> things in the fast-path. I see BPF as one way forward to moving away
> from that. Setup what you need, and only run what you currently need,
> instead of the current "Is bleh on, then baz? Is this on, then that."
>
> So, I would like to avoid "future proofing" the helpers, if that makes
> sense. Use what you need. That's why BPF is so good (one of the
> things)!
Well, it's a tradeoff. We're still defining an API that should not be
(too) confusing...
> As for bpf_redirect_xsk() it's a leaner version of bpf_redirect_map().
> You want flags/shared sockets/...? Well go use bpf_redirect_map() and
> XSKMAP. bpf_redirect_xsk() is not for you.
This argument, however, I buy: bpf_redirect() is the single-purpose
helper for redirecting to an ifindex, bpf_redirect_xsk() is the
single-purpose helper for redirecting to an XSK, and bpf_redirect_map()
is the generic one that does both of those and more. Fair enough,
consider me convinced :)
> A lot of back-and-forth for *one* if-statement, but it's kind of a
> design thing for me. ;-)
Surely you don't mean to imply that you have *better* things to do with
your time than have a 10-emails-long argument over a single if
statement? ;)
-Toke
