From: Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@fb.com>
To: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com>
Cc: bpf <bpf@vger.kernel.org>, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
Kernel Team <kernel-team@fb.com>,
Networking <netdev@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 0/3] bpf: Allow inner map with different max_entries
Date: Thu, 21 May 2020 15:59:39 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200521225939.7nmw7l5dk3wf557r@kafai-mbp.dhcp.thefacebook.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAEf4BzYQmUCbQ-PB2UR5n=WEiCHU3T3zQcQCnjvqCew6rmjGLg@mail.gmail.com>
On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 03:39:10PM -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 12:18 PM Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@fb.com> wrote:
> >
> > This series allows the outer map to be updated with inner map in different
> > size as long as it is safe (meaning the max_entries is not used in the
> > verification time during prog load).
> >
> > Please see individual patch for details.
> >
>
> Few thoughts:
>
> 1. You describe WHAT, but not necessarily WHY. Can you please
> elaborate in descriptions what motivates these changes?
There are cases where people want to update a bigger size
inner map. I will update the cover letter.
> 2. IMO, "capabilities" is word that way too strongly correlates with
> Linux capabilities framework, it's just confusing. It's also more of a
> property of a map type, than what map is capable of, but it's more
> philosophical distinction, of course :)
Sure. I can rename it to "property"
> 3. I'm honestly not convinced that patch #1 qualifies as a clean up. I
> think one specific check for types of maps that are not compatible
> with map-in-map is just fine. Instead you are spreading this bit flags
> into a long list of maps, most of which ARE compatible.
but in one place and at the same time a new map type is added to
bpf_types.h
> It's just hard
> to even see which ones are not compatible. I like current way better.
There are multiple cases that people forgot to exclude a new map
type from map-in-map in the first attempt and fix it up later.
During the map-in-map implementation, this same concern was raised also
about how to better exclude future map type from map-in-map since
not all people has used map-in-map and it is easy to forget during
review. Having it in one place in bpf_types.h will make this
more obvious in my opinion. Patch 1 is an attempt to address
this earlier concern in the map-in-map implementation.
> 4. Then for size check change, again, it's really much simpler and
> cleaner just to have a special case in check in bpf_map_meta_equal for
> cases where map size matters.
It may be simpler but not necessary less fragile for future map type.
I am OK for removing patch 1 and just check for a specific
type in patch 2 but I think it is fragile for future map
type IMO.
> 5. I also wonder if for those inner maps for which size doesn't
> matter, maybe we should set max_elements to zero when setting
> inner_meta to show that size doesn't matter? This is minor, though.
>
>
> > Martin KaFai Lau (3):
> > bpf: Clean up inner map type check
> > bpf: Relax the max_entries check for inner map
> > bpf: selftests: Add test for different inner map size
> >
> > include/linux/bpf.h | 18 +++++-
> > include/linux/bpf_types.h | 64 +++++++++++--------
> > kernel/bpf/btf.c | 2 +-
> > kernel/bpf/map_in_map.c | 12 ++--
> > kernel/bpf/syscall.c | 19 +++++-
> > kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 2 +-
> > .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/btf_map_in_map.c | 12 ++++
> > .../selftests/bpf/progs/test_btf_map_in_map.c | 31 +++++++++
> > 8 files changed, 119 insertions(+), 41 deletions(-)
> >
> > --
> > 2.24.1
> >
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-05-21 23:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-05-21 19:17 [PATCH bpf-next 0/3] bpf: Allow inner map with different max_entries Martin KaFai Lau
2020-05-21 19:17 ` [PATCH bpf-next 1/3] bpf: Clean up inner map type check Martin KaFai Lau
2020-05-21 19:18 ` [PATCH bpf-next 2/3] bpf: Relax the max_entries check for inner map Martin KaFai Lau
2020-05-21 19:18 ` [PATCH bpf-next 3/3] bpf: selftests: Add test for different inner map size Martin KaFai Lau
2020-05-21 22:39 ` [PATCH bpf-next 0/3] bpf: Allow inner map with different max_entries Andrii Nakryiko
2020-05-21 22:59 ` Martin KaFai Lau [this message]
2020-05-21 23:10 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2020-05-21 23:16 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2020-05-22 0:06 ` Martin KaFai Lau
2020-05-26 17:47 ` Andrii Nakryiko
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=20200521225939.7nmw7l5dk3wf557r@kafai-mbp.dhcp.thefacebook.com \
--to=kafai@fb.com \
--cc=andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=kernel-team@fb.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).