MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20230209192337.never.690-kees@kernel.org> <CAEf4BzZXrf48wsTP=2H2gkX6T+MM0B45o0WNswi50DQ_B-WG4Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <63e5521a.170a0220.297d7.3a80@mx.google.com>
In-Reply-To: <63e5521a.170a0220.297d7.3a80@mx.google.com>
From:   Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 9 Feb 2023 12:50:28 -0800
Message-ID: <CAADnVQKsB2n0=hShYpYnTr5yFYRt5MX2QMWo3V9SB9JrM6GhTg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] bpf: Deprecate "data" member of bpf_lpm_trie_key
To:     Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Cc:     Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
        Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@google.com>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>,
        Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@linux.dev>,
        Song Liu <song@kernel.org>, Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>,
        KP Singh <kpsingh@kernel.org>, Hao Luo <haoluo@google.com>,
        Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>, Mykola Lysenko <mykolal@fb.com>,
        Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>,
        Haowen Bai <baihaowen@meizu.com>, bpf <bpf@vger.kernel.org>,
        "open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" 
        <linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
        Jesper Dangaard Brouer <hawk@kernel.org>,
        Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>,
        Tom Rix <trix@redhat.com>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Network Development <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        clang-built-linux <llvm@lists.linux.dev>,
        linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Feb 9, 2023 at 12:05 PM Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 09, 2023 at 11:52:10AM -0800, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> > Do we need to add a new type to UAPI at all here? We can make this new
> > struct internal to kernel code (e.g. struct bpf_lpm_trie_key_kern) and
> > point out that it should match the layout of struct bpf_lpm_trie_key.
> > User-space can decide whether to use bpf_lpm_trie_key as-is, or if
> > just to ensure their custom struct has the same layout (I see some
> > internal users at Meta do just this, just make sure that they have
> > __u32 prefixlen as first member).
>
> The uses outside the kernel seemed numerous enough to justify a new UAPI
> struct (samples, selftests, etc). It also paves a single way forward
> when the userspace projects start using modern compiler options (e.g.
> systemd is usually pretty quick to adopt new features).

I don't understand how the new uapi struct bpf_lpm_trie_key_u8 helps.
cilium progs and progs/map_ptr_kern.c
cannot do s/bpf_lpm_trie_key/bpf_lpm_trie_key_u8/.
They will fail to build, so they're stuck with bpf_lpm_trie_key.

Can we do just
struct bpf_lpm_trie_key_kern {
  __u32   prefixlen;
  __u8    data[];
};
and use it in the kernel?
What is the disadvantage?