Re: [PATCH v2 bpf-next 2/5] bpf: Add support to attach bpf program to a devmap entry

[Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com>]

On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 5:17 PM David Ahern <dsahern@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> From: David Ahern <dsahern@gmail.com>
>
> Add BPF_XDP_DEVMAP attach type for use with programs associated with a
> DEVMAP entry.
>
> Allow DEVMAPs to associate a program with a device entry by adding
> a bpf_prog_fd to 'struct devmap_val'. Values read show the program
> id, so the fd and id are a union.
>
> The program associated with the fd must have type XDP with expected
> attach type BPF_XDP_DEVMAP. When a program is associated with a device
> index, the program is run on an XDP_REDIRECT and before the buffer is
> added to the per-cpu queue. At this point rxq data is still valid; the
> next patch adds tx device information allowing the prorgam to see both
> ingress and egress device indices.
>
> XDP generic is skb based and XDP programs do not work with skb's. Block
> the use case by walking maps used by a program that is to be attached
> via xdpgeneric and fail if any of them are DEVMAP / DEVMAP_HASH with
>  > 4-byte values.
>
> Block attach of BPF_XDP_DEVMAP programs to devices.
>
> Signed-off-by: David Ahern <dsahern@gmail.com>
> ---

Please cc bpf@vger.kernel.org in the future for patches related to BPF
in general.

>  include/linux/bpf.h            |  5 +++
>  include/uapi/linux/bpf.h       |  5 +++
>  kernel/bpf/devmap.c            | 79 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>  net/core/dev.c                 | 18 ++++++++
>  tools/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h |  5 +++
>  5 files changed, 110 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>

[...]

>
> +static struct xdp_buff *dev_map_run_prog(struct net_device *dev,
> +                                        struct xdp_buff *xdp,
> +                                        struct bpf_prog *xdp_prog)
> +{
> +       u32 act;
> +
> +       act = bpf_prog_run_xdp(xdp_prog, xdp);
> +       switch (act) {
> +       case XDP_DROP:
> +               fallthrough;

nit: I don't think fallthrough is necessary for cases like:

case XDP_DROP:
case XDP_PASS:
    /* do something */

> +       case XDP_PASS:
> +               break;
> +       default:
> +               bpf_warn_invalid_xdp_action(act);
> +               fallthrough;
> +       case XDP_ABORTED:
> +               trace_xdp_exception(dev, xdp_prog, act);
> +               act = XDP_DROP;
> +               break;
> +       }
> +
> +       if (act == XDP_DROP) {
> +               xdp_return_buff(xdp);
> +               xdp = NULL;

hm.. if you move XDP_DROP case to after XDP_ABORTED and do fallthrough
from XDP_ABORTED, you won't even need to override act and it will just
handle all the cases, no?

switch (act) {
case XDP_PASS:
    return xdp;
default:
    bpf_warn_invalid_xdp_action(act);
    fallthrough;
case XDP_ABORTED:
    trace_xdp_exception(dev, xdp_prog, act);
    fallthrough;
case XDP_DROP:
    xdp_return_buff(xdp);
    return NULL;
}

Wouldn't this be simpler?


> +       }
> +
> +       return xdp;
> +}
> +

[...]