On Mon, Oct 16, 2023 at 7:38 PM Jason Wang jasowang@redhat.com wrote:
On Tue, Oct 17, 2023 at 7:53 AM Alexei Starovoitov alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Oct 15, 2023 at 10:10 AM Akihiko Odaki akihiko.odaki@daynix.com wrote:
On 2023/10/16 1:07, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
On Sun, Oct 15, 2023 at 7:17 AM Akihiko Odaki akihiko.odaki@daynix.com wrote:
diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h b/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h index 0448700890f7..298634556fab 100644 --- a/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h +++ b/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h @@ -988,6 +988,7 @@ enum bpf_prog_type { BPF_PROG_TYPE_SK_LOOKUP, BPF_PROG_TYPE_SYSCALL, /* a program that can execute syscalls */ BPF_PROG_TYPE_NETFILTER,
BPF_PROG_TYPE_VNET_HASH,Sorry, we do not add new stable program types anymore.
@@ -6111,6 +6112,10 @@ struct __sk_buff { __u8 tstamp_type; __u32 :24; /* Padding, future use. */ __u64 hwtstamp;
__u32 vnet_hash_value;__u16 vnet_hash_report;__u16 vnet_rss_queue;we also do not add anything to uapi __sk_buff.
+const struct bpf_verifier_ops vnet_hash_verifier_ops = {
.get_func_proto = sk_filter_func_proto,.is_valid_access = sk_filter_is_valid_access,.convert_ctx_access = bpf_convert_ctx_access,.gen_ld_abs = bpf_gen_ld_abs,+};
and we don't do ctx rewrites like this either.
Please see how hid-bpf and cgroup rstat are hooking up bpf in _unstable_ way.
Can you describe what "stable" and "unstable" mean here? I'm new to BPF and I'm worried if it may mean the interface stability.
Let me describe the context. QEMU bundles an eBPF program that is used for the "eBPF steering program" feature of tun. Now I'm proposing to extend the feature to allow to return some values to the userspace and vhost_net. As such, the extension needs to be done in a way that ensures interface stability.
bpf is not an option then. we do not add stable bpf program types or hooks any more.
Does this mean eBPF could not be used for any new use cases other than the existing ones?
It means that any new use of bpf has to be unstable for the time being.
If a kernel subsystem wants to use bpf it needs to accept the fact that such bpf extensibility will be unstable and subsystem maintainers can decide to remove such bpf support in the future.
I don't see how it is different from the existing ones.
Can we remove BPF_CGROUP_RUN_PROG_INET_INGRESS hook along with BPF_PROG_TYPE_CGROUP_SKB program type? Obviously not. We can refactor it. We can move it around, but not remove. That's the difference in stable vs unstable.