> On Wed, Jan 12, 2022 at 11:47 AM Alexei Starovoitov
> <alexei.starovoitov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 12, 2022 at 11:21 AM Andrii Nakryiko
> > <andrii.nakryiko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jan 12, 2022 at 11:17 AM Alexei Starovoitov
> > > <alexei.starovoitov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Jan 12, 2022 at 10:24 AM Andrii Nakryiko
> > > > <andrii.nakryiko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Jan 12, 2022 at 10:18 AM Lorenzo Bianconi <lorenzo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Sun, Jan 9, 2022 at 7:05 AM Lorenzo Bianconi <lorenzo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Introduce support for the following SEC entries for XDP multi-buff
> > > > > > > > property:
> > > > > > > > - SEC("xdp_mb/")
> > > > > > > > - SEC("xdp_devmap_mb/")
> > > > > > > > - SEC("xdp_cpumap_mb/")
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Libbpf seemed to went with .<suffix> rule (e.g., fentry.s for
> > > > > > > sleepable, seems like we'll have kprobe.multi or something along
> > > > > > > those lines as well), so let's stay consistent and call this "xdp_mb",
> > > > > > > "xdp_devmap.mb", "xdp_cpumap.mb" (btw, is "mb" really all that
> > > > > > > recognizable? would ".multibuf" be too verbose?). Also, why the "/"
> > > > > > > part? Also it shouldn't be "sloppy" either. Neither expected attach
> > > > > > > type should be optional. Also not sure SEC_ATTACHABLE is needed. So
> > > > > > > at most it should be SEC_XDP_MB, probably.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ack, I fine with it. Something like:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > SEC_DEF("lsm.s/", LSM, BPF_LSM_MAC, SEC_ATTACH_BTF | SEC_SLEEPABLE, attach_lsm),
> > > > > > SEC_DEF("iter/", TRACING, BPF_TRACE_ITER, SEC_ATTACH_BTF, attach_iter),
> > > > > > SEC_DEF("syscall", SYSCALL, 0, SEC_SLEEPABLE),
> > > > > > + SEC_DEF("xdp_devmap.multibuf", XDP, BPF_XDP_DEVMAP, 0),
> > > > > > SEC_DEF("xdp_devmap/", XDP, BPF_XDP_DEVMAP, SEC_ATTACHABLE),
> > > > > > + SEC_DEF("xdp_cpumap.multibuf", XDP, BPF_XDP_CPUMAP, 0),
> > > > > > SEC_DEF("xdp_cpumap/", XDP, BPF_XDP_CPUMAP, SEC_ATTACHABLE),
> > > > > > + SEC_DEF("xdp.multibuf", XDP, BPF_XDP, 0),
> > > > >
> > > > > yep, but please use SEC_NONE instead of zero
> > > > >
> > > > > > SEC_DEF("xdp", XDP, BPF_XDP, SEC_ATTACHABLE_OPT | SEC_SLOPPY_PFX),
> > > > > > SEC_DEF("perf_event", PERF_EVENT, 0, SEC_NONE | SEC_SLOPPY_PFX),
> > > > > > SEC_DEF("lwt_in", LWT_IN, 0, SEC_NONE | SEC_SLOPPY_PFX),
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Acked-by: Toke Hoiland-Jorgensen <toke@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > > > > Acked-by: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Lorenzo Bianconi <lorenzo@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > > tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c | 8 ++++++++
> > > > > > > > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c
> > > > > > > > index 7f10dd501a52..c93f6afef96c 100644
> > > > > > > > --- a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c
> > > > > > > > +++ b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c
> > > > > > > > @@ -235,6 +235,8 @@ enum sec_def_flags {
> > > > > > > > SEC_SLEEPABLE = 8,
> > > > > > > > /* allow non-strict prefix matching */
> > > > > > > > SEC_SLOPPY_PFX = 16,
> > > > > > > > + /* BPF program support XDP multi-buff */
> > > > > > > > + SEC_XDP_MB = 32,
> > > > > > > > };
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > struct bpf_sec_def {
> > > > > > > > @@ -6562,6 +6564,9 @@ static int libbpf_preload_prog(struct bpf_program *prog,
> > > > > > > > if (def & SEC_SLEEPABLE)
> > > > > > > > opts->prog_flags |= BPF_F_SLEEPABLE;
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > + if (prog->type == BPF_PROG_TYPE_XDP && (def & SEC_XDP_MB))
> > > > > > > > + opts->prog_flags |= BPF_F_XDP_MB;
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'd say you don't even need SEC_XDP_MB flag at all, you can just check
> > > > > > > that prog->sec_name is one of "xdp.mb", "xdp_devmap.mb" or
> > > > > > > "xdp_cpumap.mb" and add the flag. SEC_XDP_MB doesn't seem generic
> > > > > > > enough to warrant a flag.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ack, something like:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > + if (prog->type == BPF_PROG_TYPE_XDP &&
> > > > > > + (!strcmp(prog->sec_name, "xdp_devmap.multibuf") ||
> > > > > > + !strcmp(prog->sec_name, "xdp_cpumap.multibuf") ||
> > > > > > + !strcmp(prog->sec_name, "xdp.multibuf")))
> > > > > > + opts->prog_flags |= BPF_F_XDP_MB;
> > > > >
> > > > > yep, can also simplify it a bit with strstr(prog->sec_name,
> > > > > ".multibuf") instead of three strcmp
> > > >
> > > > Maybe ".mb" ?
> > > > ".multibuf" is too verbose.
> > > > We're fine with ".s" for sleepable :)
> > >
> > >
> > > I had reservations about "mb" because the first and strong association
> > > is "megabyte", not "multibuf". And it's not like anyone would have
> > > tens of those programs in a single file so that ".multibuf" becomes
> > > way too verbose. But I don't feel too strongly about this, if the
> > > consensus is on ".mb".
> >
> > The rest of the patches are using _mb everywhere.
> > I would keep libbpf consistent.
>
> Should the rest of the patches maybe use "multibuf" instead of "mb"? I've been
> following this patch series closely and excitedly, and I keep having to remind
> myself that "mb" is "multibuff" and not "megabyte". If I'm having to correct
> myself while following the patch series, I'm wondering if future confusion is
> inevitable?
>
> But, is it enough confusion to be worth updating many other patches? I'm not
> sure.
>
> I agree consistency is more important than the specific term we're consistent
> on.
I would prefer to keep the "_mb" postfix, but naming is hard and I am polarized :)
Regards,
Lorenzo
>
> --Zvi
>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
