On Thu, Sep 14, 2023 at 09:29:57AM -0700, Stanislav Fomichev wrote: > On 09/14, Larysa Zaremba wrote: > > There is no fundamental reason, why multi-buffer XDP and XDP kfunc RX hints > > cannot coexist in a single program. > > > > Allow those features to be used together by modifying the flags conditions. > > > > Suggested-by: Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/CAKH8qBuzgtJj=OKMdsxEkyML36VsAuZpcrsXcyqjdKXSJCBq=Q@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > > Signed-off-by: Larysa Zaremba <larysa.zaremba@xxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > kernel/bpf/offload.c | 6 +++++- > > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/kernel/bpf/offload.c b/kernel/bpf/offload.c > > index ee35f33a96d1..43aded96c79b 100644 > > --- a/kernel/bpf/offload.c > > +++ b/kernel/bpf/offload.c > > @@ -232,7 +232,11 @@ int bpf_prog_dev_bound_init(struct bpf_prog *prog, union bpf_attr *attr) > > attr->prog_type != BPF_PROG_TYPE_XDP) > > return -EINVAL; > > > > - if (attr->prog_flags & ~BPF_F_XDP_DEV_BOUND_ONLY) > > + if (attr->prog_flags & ~(BPF_F_XDP_DEV_BOUND_ONLY | BPF_F_XDP_HAS_FRAGS)) > > + return -EINVAL; > > + > > [..] > > > + if (attr->prog_flags & BPF_F_XDP_HAS_FRAGS && > > + !(attr->prog_flags & BPF_F_XDP_DEV_BOUND_ONLY)) > > return -EINVAL; > > Any reason we have 'attr->prog_flags & BPF_F_XDP_HAS_FRAGS' part here? > Seems like doing '!(attr->prog_flags & BPF_F_XDP_DEV_BOUND_ONLY)' should > be enough, right? We only want to bail out here when BPF_F_XDP_DEV_BOUND_ONLY > is not set and we don't really care whether BPF_F_XDP_HAS_FRAGS is set > or not at this point. If !(attr->prog_flags & BPF_F_XDP_DEV_BOUND_ONLY) at this point, program could be requesting offload. Now I have thought about those conditions once more and they could be reduced to this: if (attr->prog_flags & ~(BPF_F_XDP_DEV_BOUND_ONLY) && attr->prog_flags != (BPF_F_XDP_DEV_BOUND_ONLY | BPF_F_XDP_HAS_FRAGS)) return -EINVAL; What do you think?
