On 2023/10/18 4:03, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
On Mon, Oct 16, 2023 at 7:38 PM Jason Wang <jasowang@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Tue, Oct 17, 2023 at 7:53 AM Alexei Starovoitov
<alexei.starovoitov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sun, Oct 15, 2023 at 10:10 AM Akihiko Odaki <akihiko.odaki@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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.
bpf is not an option then.
we do not add stable bpf program types or hooks any more.
Does this mean eBPF could not be used for any new use cases other than
the existing ones?
It means that any new use of bpf has to be unstable for the time being.
Can you elaborate more about making new use unstable "for the time
being?" Is it a temporary situation? What is the rationale for that?
Such information will help devise a solution that is best for both of
the BPF and network subsystems.
I would also appreciate if you have some documentation or link to
relevant discussions on the mailing list. That will avoid having same
discussion you may already have done in the past.
