From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 410B1C433FE for ; Wed, 12 Jan 2022 19:47:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1350135AbiALTru (ORCPT ); Wed, 12 Jan 2022 14:47:50 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:37280 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1350145AbiALTrs (ORCPT ); Wed, 12 Jan 2022 14:47:48 -0500 Received: from mail-pj1-x1029.google.com (mail-pj1-x1029.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::1029]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4256CC06173F; Wed, 12 Jan 2022 11:47:47 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-pj1-x1029.google.com with SMTP id b1-20020a17090a990100b001b14bd47532so7161277pjp.0; Wed, 12 Jan 2022 11:47:47 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=zkfG4jRc5wH/qs7fQZkcQpvUz3YW7dIUvtRjFq7VLhY=; b=Qbm0NWgPDtzxb5/6mvailwmzY7JgjRlIfRd9bGgRnxYSxIwYMUHUzumBMHAGNBbkbB aWif7nG3aNoT5b4c+qKjQdbW8mTu3mBThsM6lsdvXt4aYOrN/T2tluM2IVn43a2clA9G w5lENezESgtiAASYrxMoVtvjQ6Lb/LPl/wH36LWfPgCOmLKkz4rzaqRKgPiVtBosVS3o mQ+28/EXb9+QjwshI27/TYltk8bC8/3fnGIoqOxDRLGI/h9D5UjKNLSptCPuPRmoZb+E Ax/ehC3Lbu1eHmalYLnEgA+FB5u93nieVx+nX2boI+FjCtuK7hBhp46RNBC2bCjyEJMV JKyg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=zkfG4jRc5wH/qs7fQZkcQpvUz3YW7dIUvtRjFq7VLhY=; b=IXivdQj9lL/9JFRPIJ5diDcjNzSn5rHc6feLIzuKf50+06yOR93Pc7l109D72TM1kn J8PdN5B5ymBRkjElBmGnu2EHIQ3n3CFlTSKW6oRla7wBlCjfFyrvXq6ORTmB2AcVftB6 ZDmhYF0FcqN0e1ZSjedkNB2mgY3BMM73d3km1kcqGdIZP2ZkzNnQtRitL80nM+pko+rc WPxw933lG2AMEYXHWaoTmDBnpbyzJQC+YO8dFsj4w0PNCLnpVThGPhf+G9UEdq/67xoV R/y3V/SEeOhQUvRtn0Wa+jvsCw+Ob1Jw+bEgh9aWzuEFJmTyhzWAbYHTMHQJ3r6xmFmT gviw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533G4DaGcNXEdzM/Wxm5zNVd+OOxJgVVKb+jgS3URLv59Bl58x1c +i8ZzlKfPqYPpYA4S9p1ecLJzE3OvGgJay2muvgmYkwx X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxKM5AeUyHnUzJhZT4QYKSuZ+nbTXypQZ5piDMsfqk02EGBAZ9KAc5R0eCoRpR+fwFwTC6uqdYFeDGFh6z4iI0= X-Received: by 2002:a63:1ca:: with SMTP id 193mr986270pgb.497.1642016866712; Wed, 12 Jan 2022 11:47:46 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Alexei Starovoitov Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2022 11:47:35 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v21 bpf-next 18/23] libbpf: Add SEC name for xdp_mb programs To: Andrii Nakryiko Cc: Lorenzo Bianconi , bpf , Networking , Lorenzo Bianconi , "David S. Miller" , Jakub Kicinski , Alexei Starovoitov , Daniel Borkmann , Shay Agroskin , john fastabend , David Ahern , Jesper Dangaard Brouer , Eelco Chaudron , Jason Wang , Alexander Duyck , Saeed Mahameed , Maciej Fijalkowski , Magnus Karlsson , tirthendu.sarkar@intel.com, =?UTF-8?B?VG9rZSBIw7hpbGFuZC1Kw7hyZ2Vuc2Vu?= Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: bpf@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jan 12, 2022 at 11:21 AM Andrii Nakryiko wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 12, 2022 at 11:17 AM Alexei Starovoitov > wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jan 12, 2022 at 10:24 AM Andrii Nakryiko > > wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 12, 2022 at 10:18 AM Lorenzo Bianconi wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Jan 9, 2022 at 7:05 AM Lorenzo Bianconi wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Introduce support for the following SEC entries for XDP multi-buff > > > > > > property: > > > > > > - SEC("xdp_mb/") > > > > > > - SEC("xdp_devmap_mb/") > > > > > > - SEC("xdp_cpumap_mb/") > > > > > > > > > > Libbpf seemed to went with . rule (e.g., fentry.s for > > > > > sleepable, seems like we'll have kprobe.multi or something along > > > > > those lines as well), so let's stay consistent and call this "xdp_mb", > > > > > "xdp_devmap.mb", "xdp_cpumap.mb" (btw, is "mb" really all that > > > > > recognizable? would ".multibuf" be too verbose?). Also, why the "/" > > > > > part? Also it shouldn't be "sloppy" either. Neither expected attach > > > > > type should be optional. Also not sure SEC_ATTACHABLE is needed. So > > > > > at most it should be SEC_XDP_MB, probably. > > > > > > > > ack, I fine with it. Something like: > > > > > > > > SEC_DEF("lsm.s/", LSM, BPF_LSM_MAC, SEC_ATTACH_BTF | SEC_SLEEPABLE, attach_lsm), > > > > SEC_DEF("iter/", TRACING, BPF_TRACE_ITER, SEC_ATTACH_BTF, attach_iter), > > > > SEC_DEF("syscall", SYSCALL, 0, SEC_SLEEPABLE), > > > > + SEC_DEF("xdp_devmap.multibuf", XDP, BPF_XDP_DEVMAP, 0), > > > > SEC_DEF("xdp_devmap/", XDP, BPF_XDP_DEVMAP, SEC_ATTACHABLE), > > > > + SEC_DEF("xdp_cpumap.multibuf", XDP, BPF_XDP_CPUMAP, 0), > > > > SEC_DEF("xdp_cpumap/", XDP, BPF_XDP_CPUMAP, SEC_ATTACHABLE), > > > > + SEC_DEF("xdp.multibuf", XDP, BPF_XDP, 0), > > > > > > yep, but please use SEC_NONE instead of zero > > > > > > > SEC_DEF("xdp", XDP, BPF_XDP, SEC_ATTACHABLE_OPT | SEC_SLOPPY_PFX), > > > > SEC_DEF("perf_event", PERF_EVENT, 0, SEC_NONE | SEC_SLOPPY_PFX), > > > > SEC_DEF("lwt_in", LWT_IN, 0, SEC_NONE | SEC_SLOPPY_PFX), > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Acked-by: Toke Hoiland-Jorgensen > > > > > > Acked-by: John Fastabend > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Lorenzo Bianconi > > > > > > --- > > > > > > tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c | 8 ++++++++ > > > > > > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+) > > > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c > > > > > > index 7f10dd501a52..c93f6afef96c 100644 > > > > > > --- a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c > > > > > > +++ b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c > > > > > > @@ -235,6 +235,8 @@ enum sec_def_flags { > > > > > > SEC_SLEEPABLE = 8, > > > > > > /* allow non-strict prefix matching */ > > > > > > SEC_SLOPPY_PFX = 16, > > > > > > + /* BPF program support XDP multi-buff */ > > > > > > + SEC_XDP_MB = 32, > > > > > > }; > > > > > > > > > > > > struct bpf_sec_def { > > > > > > @@ -6562,6 +6564,9 @@ static int libbpf_preload_prog(struct bpf_program *prog, > > > > > > if (def & SEC_SLEEPABLE) > > > > > > opts->prog_flags |= BPF_F_SLEEPABLE; > > > > > > > > > > > > + if (prog->type == BPF_PROG_TYPE_XDP && (def & SEC_XDP_MB)) > > > > > > + opts->prog_flags |= BPF_F_XDP_MB; > > > > > > > > > > I'd say you don't even need SEC_XDP_MB flag at all, you can just check > > > > > that prog->sec_name is one of "xdp.mb", "xdp_devmap.mb" or > > > > > "xdp_cpumap.mb" and add the flag. SEC_XDP_MB doesn't seem generic > > > > > enough to warrant a flag. > > > > > > > > ack, something like: > > > > > > > > + if (prog->type == BPF_PROG_TYPE_XDP && > > > > + (!strcmp(prog->sec_name, "xdp_devmap.multibuf") || > > > > + !strcmp(prog->sec_name, "xdp_cpumap.multibuf") || > > > > + !strcmp(prog->sec_name, "xdp.multibuf"))) > > > > + opts->prog_flags |= BPF_F_XDP_MB; > > > > > > yep, can also simplify it a bit with strstr(prog->sec_name, > > > ".multibuf") instead of three strcmp > > > > Maybe ".mb" ? > > ".multibuf" is too verbose. > > We're fine with ".s" for sleepable :) > > > I had reservations about "mb" because the first and strong association > is "megabyte", not "multibuf". And it's not like anyone would have > tens of those programs in a single file so that ".multibuf" becomes > way too verbose. But I don't feel too strongly about this, if the > consensus is on ".mb". The rest of the patches are using _mb everywhere. I would keep libbpf consistent.