Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.35 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.35;
Date:   Thu, 14 Sep 2023 09:29:57 -0700
In-Reply-To: <20230914083716.57443-1-larysa.zaremba@intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
References: <20230914083716.57443-1-larysa.zaremba@intel.com>
Message-ID: <ZQM1BUzcZQtXusA3@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next] bpf: Allow to use kfunc XDP hints and frags together
From:   Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@google.com>
To:     Larysa Zaremba <larysa.zaremba@intel.com>
Cc:     bpf@vger.kernel.org, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>,
        Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@linux.dev>,
        Song Liu <song@kernel.org>,
        Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@linux.dev>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>,
        KP Singh <kpsingh@kernel.org>, Hao Luo <haoluo@google.com>,
        Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Precedence: bulk

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 <sdf@google.com>
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/CAKH8qBuzgtJj=OKMdsxEkyML36VsAuZpcrsXcyqjdKXSJCBq=Q@mail.gmail.com/
> Signed-off-by: Larysa Zaremba <larysa.zaremba@intel.com>
> ---
>  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.