From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.2 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6303C4332D for ; Fri, 20 Mar 2020 20:30:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AEF4F20739 for ; Fri, 20 Mar 2020 20:30:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727046AbgCTUaW (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 Mar 2020 16:30:22 -0400 Received: from www62.your-server.de ([213.133.104.62]:42446 "EHLO www62.your-server.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726855AbgCTUaW (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 Mar 2020 16:30:22 -0400 Received: from sslproxy02.your-server.de ([78.47.166.47]) by www62.your-server.de with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jFOHW-0000Nl-5N; Fri, 20 Mar 2020 21:30:14 +0100 Received: from [85.7.42.192] (helo=pc-9.home) by sslproxy02.your-server.de with esmtpsa (TLSv1.3:TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1jFOHV-000BXR-Mz; Fri, 20 Mar 2020 21:30:13 +0100 Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 1/4] xdp: Support specifying expected existing program when attaching XDP To: =?UTF-8?Q?Toke_H=c3=b8iland-J=c3=b8rgensen?= , Jakub Kicinski Cc: Alexei Starovoitov , Martin KaFai Lau , Song Liu , Yonghong Song , Andrii Nakryiko , "David S. Miller" , Jesper Dangaard Brouer , John Fastabend , Lorenz Bauer , Andrey Ignatov , netdev@vger.kernel.org, bpf@vger.kernel.org References: <158462359206.164779.15902346296781033076.stgit@toke.dk> <158462359315.164779.13931660750493121404.stgit@toke.dk> <20200319155236.3d8537c5@kicinski-fedora-PC1C0HJN> <875zez76ph.fsf@toke.dk> From: Daniel Borkmann Message-ID: Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2020 21:30:13 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.7.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <875zez76ph.fsf@toke.dk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Authenticated-Sender: daniel@iogearbox.net X-Virus-Scanned: Clear (ClamAV 0.102.2/25757/Fri Mar 20 14:13:59 2020) Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org On 3/20/20 9:48 AM, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote: > Jakub Kicinski writes: >> On Thu, 19 Mar 2020 14:13:13 +0100 Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote: >>> From: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen >>> >>> While it is currently possible for userspace to specify that an existing >>> XDP program should not be replaced when attaching to an interface, there is >>> no mechanism to safely replace a specific XDP program with another. >>> >>> This patch adds a new netlink attribute, IFLA_XDP_EXPECTED_FD, which can be >>> set along with IFLA_XDP_FD. If set, the kernel will check that the program >>> currently loaded on the interface matches the expected one, and fail the >>> operation if it does not. This corresponds to a 'cmpxchg' memory operation. >>> >>> A new companion flag, XDP_FLAGS_EXPECT_FD, is also added to explicitly >>> request checking of the EXPECTED_FD attribute. This is needed for userspace >>> to discover whether the kernel supports the new attribute. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen >> >> I didn't know we wanted to go ahead with this... > > Well, I'm aware of the bpf_link discussion, obviously. Not sure what's > happening with that, though. So since this is a straight-forward > extension of the existing API, that doesn't carry a high implementation > cost, I figured I'd just go ahead with this. Doesn't mean we can't have > something similar in bpf_link as well, of course. Overall series looks okay, but before we go down that road, especially given there is the new bpf_link object now, I would like us to first elaborate and figure out how XDP fits into the bpf_link concept, where its limitations are, whether it even fits at all, and how its semantics should look like realistically given bpf_link is to be generic to all program types. Then we could extend the atomic replace there generically as well. I think at the very minimum it might have similarities with what is proposed here, but from a user experience I would like to avoid having something similar in XDP API and then again in bpf_link which would just be confusing.. Thanks, Daniel