On Thu, Sep 14, 2023 at 9:55 AM Larysa Zaremba <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 14, 2023 at 09:29:57AM -0700, Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
> > On 09/14, Larysa Zaremba wrote:
> > > There is no fundamental reason, why multi-buffer XDP and XDP kfunc RX hints
> > > cannot coexist in a single program.
> > >
> > > Allow those features to be used together by modifying the flags conditions.
> > >
> > > Suggested-by: Stanislav Fomichev <[email protected]>
> > > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/CAKH8qBuzgtJj=OKMdsxEkyML36VsAuZpcrsXcyqjdKXSJCBq=Q@mail.gmail.com/
> > > Signed-off-by: Larysa Zaremba <[email protected]>
> > > ---
> > > kernel/bpf/offload.c | 6 +++++-
> > > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/kernel/bpf/offload.c b/kernel/bpf/offload.c
> > > index ee35f33a96d1..43aded96c79b 100644
> > > --- a/kernel/bpf/offload.c
> > > +++ b/kernel/bpf/offload.c
> > > @@ -232,7 +232,11 @@ int bpf_prog_dev_bound_init(struct bpf_prog *prog, union bpf_attr *attr)
> > > attr->prog_type != BPF_PROG_TYPE_XDP)
> > > return -EINVAL;
> > >
> > > - if (attr->prog_flags & ~BPF_F_XDP_DEV_BOUND_ONLY)
> > > + if (attr->prog_flags & ~(BPF_F_XDP_DEV_BOUND_ONLY | BPF_F_XDP_HAS_FRAGS))
> > > + return -EINVAL;
> > > +
> >
> > [..]
> >
> > > + if (attr->prog_flags & BPF_F_XDP_HAS_FRAGS &&
> > > + !(attr->prog_flags & BPF_F_XDP_DEV_BOUND_ONLY))
> > > return -EINVAL;
> >
> > Any reason we have 'attr->prog_flags & BPF_F_XDP_HAS_FRAGS' part here?
> > Seems like doing '!(attr->prog_flags & BPF_F_XDP_DEV_BOUND_ONLY)' should
> > be enough, right? We only want to bail out here when BPF_F_XDP_DEV_BOUND_ONLY
> > is not set and we don't really care whether BPF_F_XDP_HAS_FRAGS is set
> > or not at this point.
>
> If !(attr->prog_flags & BPF_F_XDP_DEV_BOUND_ONLY) at this point, program could
> be requesting offload.
>
> Now I have thought about those conditions once more and they could be reduced to
> this:
>
> if (attr->prog_flags & ~(BPF_F_XDP_DEV_BOUND_ONLY) &&
> attr->prog_flags != (BPF_F_XDP_DEV_BOUND_ONLY | BPF_F_XDP_HAS_FRAGS))
> return -EINVAL;
>
> What do you think?
Ah, so this check is here to protect against the mbuf+offloaded
combination? (looking at that other thread with Maciej)
Let's keep your current way with two separate checks, but let's add
your "/* Frags are allowed only if program is dev-bound-only, but not
if it is requesting
bpf offload. */" as a comment to the second check?
On Thu, Sep 14, 2023 at 10:05:47AM -0700, Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 14, 2023 at 9:55 AM Larysa Zaremba <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 14, 2023 at 09:29:57AM -0700, Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
> > > On 09/14, Larysa Zaremba wrote:
> > > > There is no fundamental reason, why multi-buffer XDP and XDP kfunc RX hints
> > > > cannot coexist in a single program.
> > > >
> > > > Allow those features to be used together by modifying the flags conditions.
> > > >
> > > > Suggested-by: Stanislav Fomichev <[email protected]>
> > > > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/CAKH8qBuzgtJj=OKMdsxEkyML36VsAuZpcrsXcyqjdKXSJCBq=Q@mail.gmail.com/
> > > > Signed-off-by: Larysa Zaremba <[email protected]>
> > > > ---
> > > > kernel/bpf/offload.c | 6 +++++-
> > > > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/kernel/bpf/offload.c b/kernel/bpf/offload.c
> > > > index ee35f33a96d1..43aded96c79b 100644
> > > > --- a/kernel/bpf/offload.c
> > > > +++ b/kernel/bpf/offload.c
> > > > @@ -232,7 +232,11 @@ int bpf_prog_dev_bound_init(struct bpf_prog *prog, union bpf_attr *attr)
> > > > attr->prog_type != BPF_PROG_TYPE_XDP)
> > > > return -EINVAL;
> > > >
> > > > - if (attr->prog_flags & ~BPF_F_XDP_DEV_BOUND_ONLY)
> > > > + if (attr->prog_flags & ~(BPF_F_XDP_DEV_BOUND_ONLY | BPF_F_XDP_HAS_FRAGS))
> > > > + return -EINVAL;
> > > > +
> > >
> > > [..]
> > >
> > > > + if (attr->prog_flags & BPF_F_XDP_HAS_FRAGS &&
> > > > + !(attr->prog_flags & BPF_F_XDP_DEV_BOUND_ONLY))
> > > > return -EINVAL;
> > >
> > > Any reason we have 'attr->prog_flags & BPF_F_XDP_HAS_FRAGS' part here?
> > > Seems like doing '!(attr->prog_flags & BPF_F_XDP_DEV_BOUND_ONLY)' should
> > > be enough, right? We only want to bail out here when BPF_F_XDP_DEV_BOUND_ONLY
> > > is not set and we don't really care whether BPF_F_XDP_HAS_FRAGS is set
> > > or not at this point.
> >
> > If !(attr->prog_flags & BPF_F_XDP_DEV_BOUND_ONLY) at this point, program could
> > be requesting offload.
> >
> > Now I have thought about those conditions once more and they could be reduced to
> > this:
> >
> > if (attr->prog_flags & ~(BPF_F_XDP_DEV_BOUND_ONLY) &&
> > attr->prog_flags != (BPF_F_XDP_DEV_BOUND_ONLY | BPF_F_XDP_HAS_FRAGS))
> > return -EINVAL;
> >
> > What do you think?
>
> Ah, so this check is here to protect against the mbuf+offloaded
> combination? (looking at that other thread with Maciej)
> Let's keep your current way with two separate checks, but let's add
> your "/* Frags are allowed only if program is dev-bound-only, but not
> if it is requesting
> bpf offload. */" as a comment to the second check?
Ok, sound good to me.