On Tue, Jan 18, 2022 at 2:31 PM Lorenzo Bianconi <lorenzo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Jan 17, 2022 at 06:28:30PM +0100, Lorenzo Bianconi wrote:
> > > Introduce support for the following SEC entries for XDP multi-frags
> > > property:
> > > - SEC("xdp.frags")
> > > - SEC("xdp.frags/devmap")
> > > - SEC("xdp.frags/cpumap")
> > >
> > > 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 | 6 ++++++
> > > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c
> > > index fdb3536afa7d..611e81357fb6 100644
> > > --- a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c
> > > +++ b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c
> > > @@ -6562,6 +6562,9 @@ 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 && strstr(prog->sec_name, ".frags"))
> > > + opts->prog_flags |= BPF_F_XDP_HAS_FRAGS;
> >
> > That's a bit sloppy.
> > Could you handle it similar to SEC_SLEEPABLE?
> >
> > > +
> > > if ((prog->type == BPF_PROG_TYPE_TRACING ||
> > > prog->type == BPF_PROG_TYPE_LSM ||
> > > prog->type == BPF_PROG_TYPE_EXT) && !prog->attach_btf_id) {
> > > @@ -8600,8 +8603,11 @@ static const struct bpf_sec_def section_defs[] = {
> > > 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.frags/devmap", XDP, BPF_XDP_DEVMAP, SEC_NONE),
> > > SEC_DEF("xdp_devmap/", XDP, BPF_XDP_DEVMAP, SEC_ATTACHABLE),
> > > + SEC_DEF("xdp.frags/cpumap", XDP, BPF_XDP_CPUMAP, SEC_NONE),
> > > SEC_DEF("xdp_cpumap/", XDP, BPF_XDP_CPUMAP, SEC_ATTACHABLE),
> > > + SEC_DEF("xdp.frags", XDP, BPF_XDP, SEC_NONE),
> >
> > It would be SEC_FRAGS here instead of SEC_NONE.
>
> ack, I dropped SEC_FRAGS (SEC_XDP_MB before) from sec_def_flags because Andrii asked to remove
> it but I am fine to add it back. Agree?
Andrii,
what was the motivation?
imo that's cleaner than strstr.
