> Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org> writes:
> 
> > On Wed, 29 Sep 2021 11:54:46 -0700 Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> >> I'm missing something. Why do we need a separate flush() helper?
> >> Can't we do:
> >> char buf[64], *p;
> >> p = xdp_mb_pointer(ctx, flags, off, len, buf);
> >> read/write p[]
> >> if (p == buf)
> >>     xdp_store_bytes(ctx, off, buf, len, flags);
> >
> > Sure we can. That's what I meant by "leave the checking to the program".
> > It's bike shedding at this point.
> 
> Yeah, let's discuss the details once we have a patch :)
> 
> -Toke
> 

Hi,

I implemented the xdp_mb_pointer/xdp_mb_pointer_flush logic here (according to
current discussion):
https://github.com/LorenzoBianconi/bpf-next/commit/a5c61c0fa6cb05bab8caebd96aca5fbbd9510867

For the moment I have only defined two utility routines and I have not exported
them in ebpf helpers since I need to check what are missing bits in the verifier
code (but afaik this would be orthogonal with respect to the "helper code"):
- bpf_xdp_pointer --> xdp_mb_pointer
- bpf_xdp_copy_buf --> xdp_mb_pointer_flush

In order to test them I have defined two new ebpf helpers (they use
bpf_xdp_pointer/bpf_xdp_copy_buf internally):
- bpf_xdp_load_bytes
- bpf_xdp_store_bytes

In order to test bpf_xdp_load_bytes/bpf_xdp_store_bytes +
bpf_xdp_pointer/bpf_xdp_copy_buf I added some selftests here:
https://github.com/LorenzoBianconi/bpf-next/commit/5661a491a890c00db744f2884b7ee3a6d0319384

Can you please check if the code above is aligned to current requirements or if
it is missing something?
If this code it is fine, I guess we have two option here:
- integrate the commits above in xdp multi-buff series (posting v15) and work on
  the verfier code in parallel (if xdp_mb_pointer helper is not required from day0)
- integrate verfier changes in xdp multi-buff series, drop bpf_xdp_load_bytes
  helper (probably we will still need bpf_xdp_store_bytes) and introduce
  bpf_xdp_pointer as new ebpf helper.

I am fine both ways. If we decide for the second option I would need some
guidance on verifier changes since I am not so familiar with that code.

Regards,
Lorenzo