Re: [PATCH bpf-next 1/3] libbpf: xsk: use bpf_link

From: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>
To: "Toke Høiland-Jørgensen" <toke@redhat.com>,
	"John Fastabend" <john.fastabend@gmail.com>,
	"Björn Töpel" <bjorn.topel@intel.com>,
	"Maciej Fijalkowski" <maciej.fijalkowski@intel.com>,
	daniel@iogearbox.net, ast@kernel.org, bpf@vger.kernel.org,
	netdev@vger.kernel.org
Cc: andrii@kernel.org, magnus.karlsson@intel.com, ciara.loftus@intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 1/3] libbpf: xsk: use bpf_link
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2021 16:18:28 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <602b0f54c05a6_3ed41208dc@john-XPS-13-9370.notmuch> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <8735xxc8pf.fsf@toke.dk>

Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
> John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com> writes:
> 
> >> > However, in libxdp we can solve the original problem in a different way,
> >> > and in fact I already suggested to Magnus that we should do this (see
> >> > [1]); so one way forward could be to address it during the merge in
> >> > libxdp? It should be possible to address the original issue (two
> >> > instances of xdpsock breaking each other when they exit), but
> >> > applications will still need to do an explicit unload operation before
> >> > exiting (i.e., the automatic detach on bpf_link fd closure will take
> >> > more work, and likely require extending the bpf_link kernel support)...
> >> >
> >> 
> >> I'd say it's depending on the libbpf 1.0/libxdp merge timeframe. If
> >> we're months ahead, then I'd really like to see this in libbpf until the
> >> merge. However, I'll leave that for Magnus/you to decide!
> >
> > Did I miss some thread? What does this mean libbpf 1.0/libxdp merge?
> 
> The idea is to keep libbpf focused on bpf, and move the AF_XDP stuff to
> libxdp (so the socket stuff in xsk.h). We're adding the existing code
> wholesale, and keeping API compatibility during the move, so all that's
> needed is adding -lxdp when compiling. And obviously the existing libbpf
> code isn't going anywhere until such a time as there's a general
> backwards compatibility-breaking deprecation in libbpf (which I believe
> Andrii is planning to do in an upcoming and as-of-yet unannounced v1.0
> release).

OK, I would like to keep the basic XDP pieces in libbpf though. For example
bpf_program__attach_xdp(). This way we don't have one lib to attach
everything, but XDP.

> 
> While integrating the XSK code into libxdp we're trying to make it
> compatible with the rest of the library (i.e., multi-prog). Hence my
> preference to avoid introducing something that makes this harder :)
> 
> -Toke
> 

OK that makes sense to me thanks. But, I'm missing something (maybe its
obvious to everyone else?).

When you load an XDP program you should get a reference to it. And then
XDP program should never be unloaded until that id is removed right? It
may or may not have an xsk map. Why does adding/removing programs from
an associated map have any impact on the XDP program? That seems like
the buggy part to me. No other map behaves this way as far as I can
tell. Now if the program with the XDP reference closes without pinning
the map or otherwise doing something with it, sure the map gets destroyed
and any xsk sockets are lost.

Thanks!
John