Re: [PATCH bpf-next v4 2/3] libbpf: add low level TC-BPF API

[Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>]

On 4/28/21 12:51 AM, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
> Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net> writes:
>> On 4/28/21 12:36 AM, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
>>> Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net> writes:
>> [...]
>>>> Small addendum:
>>>>
>>>>        DECLARE_LIBBPF_OPTS(bpf_tc_hook, hook, .ifindex = 42, .which = BPF_TC_INGRESS|BPF_TC_EGRESS);
>>>>
>>>>        err = bpf_tc_hook_create(&hook);
>>>>        [...]
>>>>
>>>> ... is also possible, of course, and then both bpf_tc_hook_{create,destroy}() are symmetric.
>>>
>>> It should be allowed, but it wouldn't actually make any difference which
>>> combination of TC_INGRESS and TC_EGRESS you specify, as long as one of
>>> them is set, right? I.e., we just attach the clsact qdisc in both
>>> cases...
>>
>> Yes, that is correct, for the bpf_tc_hook_create() whether you pass in BPF_TC_INGRESS,
>> BPF_TC_EGRESS or BPF_TC_INGRESS|BPF_TC_EGRESS, you'll end up creating clsact qdisc in
>> either of the three cases. Only the bpf_tc_hook_destroy() differs
>> between all of them.
> 
> Right, just checking. Other than that, I like your proposal; it loses
> the "automatic removal of qdisc if we added it" feature, but that's
> probably OK: less magic is good. And as long as bpf_tc_hook_create()
> returns EEXIST if the qdisc already exists, the caller can do the same
> thing if they want.

Yes exactly. Less magic the better, especially given this has global effect.

Thanks,
Daniel