BPF Archive on lore.kernel.org
 help / color / Atom feed
From: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>
To: Magnus Karlsson <magnus.karlsson@gmail.com>
Cc: "John Fastabend" <john.fastabend@gmail.com>,
	"Magnus Karlsson" <magnus.karlsson@intel.com>,
	"Björn Töpel" <bjorn.topel@intel.com>,
	"Alexei Starovoitov" <ast@kernel.org>,
	"Daniel Borkmann" <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
	"Network Development" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
	"Jonathan Lemon" <jonathan.lemon@gmail.com>,
	bpf <bpf@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf] libbpf: fix compatibility for kernels without need_wakeup
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2019 20:42:24 -0700
Message-ID: <20191016034222.zykzlaoinhjvrkef@ast-mbp> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAJ8uoz2mzgwvxpE1jsXvPEU=830MeOEtx4T_CMK3pjexFyJdnw@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 10:26:10AM +0200, Magnus Karlsson wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 12, 2019 at 6:55 PM Alexei Starovoitov
> <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 1:58 PM John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Magnus Karlsson wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 9:29 PM John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Magnus Karlsson wrote:
> > > > > > When the need_wakeup flag was added to AF_XDP, the format of the
> > > > > > XDP_MMAP_OFFSETS getsockopt was extended. Code was added to the kernel
> > > > > > to take care of compatibility issues arrising from running
> > > > > > applications using any of the two formats. However, libbpf was not
> > > > > > extended to take care of the case when the application/libbpf uses the
> > > > > > new format but the kernel only supports the old format. This patch
> > > > > > adds support in libbpf for parsing the old format, before the
> > > > > > need_wakeup flag was added, and emulating a set of static need_wakeup
> > > > > > flags that will always work for the application.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Fixes: a4500432c2587cb2a ("libbpf: add support for need_wakeup flag in AF_XDP part")
> > > > > > Reported-by: Eloy Degen <degeneloy@gmail.com>
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Magnus Karlsson <magnus.karlsson@intel.com>
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > >  tools/lib/bpf/xsk.c | 109 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------
> > > > > >  1 file changed, 78 insertions(+), 31 deletions(-)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/xsk.c b/tools/lib/bpf/xsk.c
> > > > > > index a902838..46f9687 100644
> > > > > > --- a/tools/lib/bpf/xsk.c
> > > > > > +++ b/tools/lib/bpf/xsk.c
> > > > > > @@ -44,6 +44,25 @@
> > > > > >   #define PF_XDP AF_XDP
> > > > > >  #endif
> > > > > >
> > > > > > +#define is_mmap_offsets_v1(optlen) \
> > > > > > +     ((optlen) == sizeof(struct xdp_mmap_offsets_v1))
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > +#define get_prod_off(ring) \
> > > > > > +     (is_mmap_offsets_v1(optlen) ? \
> > > > > > +      ((struct xdp_mmap_offsets_v1 *)&off)->ring.producer : \
> > > > > > +      off.ring.producer)
> > > > > > +#define get_cons_off(ring) \
> > > > > > +     (is_mmap_offsets_v1(optlen) ? \
> > > > > > +      ((struct xdp_mmap_offsets_v1 *)&off)->ring.consumer : \
> > > > > > +      off.ring.consumer)
> > > > > > +#define get_desc_off(ring) \
> > > > > > +     (is_mmap_offsets_v1(optlen) ? \
> > > > > > +      ((struct xdp_mmap_offsets_v1 *)&off)->ring.desc : off.ring.desc)
> > > > > > +#define get_flags_off(ring) \
> > > > > > +     (is_mmap_offsets_v1(optlen) ? \
> > > > > > +      ((struct xdp_mmap_offsets_v1 *)&off)->ring.consumer + sizeof(u32) : \
> > > > > > +      off.ring.flags)
> > > > > > +
> > > > >
> > > > > It seems the only thing added was flags right? If so seems we
> > > > > only need the last one there, get_flags_off(). I think it would
> > > > > be a bit cleaner to just use the macros where its actually
> > > > > needed IMO.
> > > >
> > > > The flag is indeed added to the end of struct xdp_ring_offsets, but
> > > > this struct is replicated four times in the struct xdp_mmap_offsets,
> > > > so the added flags are present four time there at different offsets.
> > > > This means that 3 out of the 4 prod, cons and desc variables are
> > > > located at different offsets from the original. Do not know how I can
> > > > get rid of these macros in this case. But it might just be me not
> > > > seeing it, of course :-).
> > >
> > > Not sure I like it but not seeing a cleaner solution that doesn't cause
> > > larger changes so...
> > >
> > > Acked-by: John Fastabend <john.fastabend.gmail.com>
> >
> > Frankly above hack looks awful.
> > What is _v1 ?! Is it going to be _v2?
> > What was _v0?
> > I also don't see how this is a fix. imo bpf-next is more appropriate
> > and if "large changes" are necessary then go ahead and do them.
> > We're not doing fixes-branches in libbpf.
> > The library always moves forward and compatible with all older kernels.
> 
> The fix in this patch is about making libbpf compatible with older
> kernels (<=5.3). It is not at the moment in bpf. The current code in
> bpf and bpf-next only works with the 5.3-rc kernels, which I think is
> bad and a bug. But please let me know if this is bpf or bpf-next and I
> will adjust accordingly.
> 
> As for the hack, I do not like it and neither did John, but no one
> managed to come up with something better. But if this is a fix for bpf
> (will not work at all for bpf-next for compatibility reasons), we
> could potentially do something like this, as this is only present in
> the 5.4-rc series.

Practically there is no bpf tree for libbpf.
bpf-next is the only place where most of the fixes to libbpf should go.
libbpf must be compatible with _all_ older kernels.
We have no plans of branching previously released libbpf.
If there is a bug in libbpf 0.0.5 (current latest and released)
then it will be fixed in libbpf 0.0.6.
So please target your fixes to bpf-next tree and upcoming libbpf release.
Please make sure that your fixes work with kernel 5.3 and 5.4-rc.

There are two exceptions where libbpf fixes should actually be in bpf tree:
- fixes to libbpf that are necessary to fix perf builds in bpf tree.
- fixes to libbpf that are necessary to support selftest/bpf/ in bpf tree.
Because these two are actually kernel tree specific.


      reply index

Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-10-08 10:23 Magnus Karlsson
2019-10-08 19:28 ` John Fastabend
2019-10-09  7:31   ` Magnus Karlsson
2019-10-11 20:58     ` John Fastabend
2019-10-12 16:54       ` Alexei Starovoitov
2019-10-14  8:26         ` Magnus Karlsson
2019-10-16  3:42           ` Alexei Starovoitov [this message]

Reply instructions:

You may reply publically to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20191016034222.zykzlaoinhjvrkef@ast-mbp \
    --to=alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com \
    --cc=ast@kernel.org \
    --cc=bjorn.topel@intel.com \
    --cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
    --cc=john.fastabend@gmail.com \
    --cc=jonathan.lemon@gmail.com \
    --cc=magnus.karlsson@gmail.com \
    --cc=magnus.karlsson@intel.com \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

BPF Archive on lore.kernel.org

Archives are clonable:
	git clone --mirror https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/0 bpf/git/0.git

	# If you have public-inbox 1.1+ installed, you may
	# initialize and index your mirror using the following commands:
	public-inbox-init -V2 bpf bpf/ https://lore.kernel.org/bpf \
		bpf@vger.kernel.org
	public-inbox-index bpf

Example config snippet for mirrors

Newsgroup available over NNTP:
	nntp://nntp.lore.kernel.org/org.kernel.vger.bpf


AGPL code for this site: git clone https://public-inbox.org/public-inbox.git