On 2023/10/16 1:07, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
On Sun, Oct 15, 2023 at 7:17 AM Akihiko Odaki <akihiko.odaki@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h b/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h index 0448700890f7..298634556fab 100644 --- a/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h +++ b/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h @@ -988,6 +988,7 @@ enum bpf_prog_type { BPF_PROG_TYPE_SK_LOOKUP, BPF_PROG_TYPE_SYSCALL, /* a program that can execute syscalls */ BPF_PROG_TYPE_NETFILTER, + BPF_PROG_TYPE_VNET_HASH,Sorry, we do not add new stable program types anymore.@@ -6111,6 +6112,10 @@ struct __sk_buff { __u8 tstamp_type; __u32 :24; /* Padding, future use. */ __u64 hwtstamp; + + __u32 vnet_hash_value; + __u16 vnet_hash_report; + __u16 vnet_rss_queue; };we also do not add anything to uapi __sk_buff.+const struct bpf_verifier_ops vnet_hash_verifier_ops = { + .get_func_proto = sk_filter_func_proto, + .is_valid_access = sk_filter_is_valid_access, + .convert_ctx_access = bpf_convert_ctx_access, + .gen_ld_abs = bpf_gen_ld_abs, +};and we don't do ctx rewrites like this either. Please see how hid-bpf and cgroup rstat are hooking up bpf in _unstable_ way.
Can you describe what "stable" and "unstable" mean here? I'm new to BPF and I'm worried if it may mean the interface stability.
Let me describe the context. QEMU bundles an eBPF program that is used for the "eBPF steering program" feature of tun. Now I'm proposing to extend the feature to allow to return some values to the userspace and vhost_net. As such, the extension needs to be done in a way that ensures interface stability.
