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?