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 [thread overview]
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.
prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-10-16 3:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-10-08 10:23 [PATCH bpf] libbpf: fix compatibility for kernels without need_wakeup 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 publicly 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
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).