From: Paul Chaignon <paul.chaignon@gmail.com>
To: Jordan Rife <jordan@jrife.io>
Cc: bpf@vger.kernel.org, netdev@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>,
Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@fomichev.me>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 bpf-next 0/2] bpf: bpf_redirect_peer egress redirection
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2026 00:06:09 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ajHI0eUUqJpAmKvb@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CABi4-ogYKX9T_gWcXsKSs5-y=3GA_WqwfyjobmCxexTtQ_H86w@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, Jun 16, 2026 at 01:49:26PM -0700, Jordan Rife wrote:
> > IMO, calling it BPF_F_EGRESS would be less confusing. It's a shame we
> > can't have the same flag API between bpf_redirect() and
> > bpf_redirect_peer(), but this is creating inconsistent semantics for
> > the terms egress/ingress across the two helpers.
>
> Yeah, one annoying thing about BPF_F_EGRESS is that it would only
> apply to bpf_redirect_peer, so you still have inconsistencies across
Yes, that's what I meant by "we can't have the same flag API" :)
Alternatively, we could define BPF_F_EGRESS as 1ULL << 1, for both
helpers, but I'm not sure it's worth it. Maybe Daniel will have another
idea?
> helpers. Perhaps this is less weird than having BPF_F_INGRESS perform
> an egress redirection though.
>
> Jordan
prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-06-16 22:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-06-13 18:34 [PATCH v1 bpf-next 0/2] bpf: bpf_redirect_peer egress redirection Jordan Rife
2026-06-13 18:34 ` [PATCH v1 bpf-next 1/2] bpf: Support BPF_F_INGRESS with bpf_redirect_peer Jordan Rife
2026-06-13 18:48 ` sashiko-bot
2026-06-13 18:34 ` [PATCH v1 bpf-next 2/2] selftests/bpf: Add tests for bpf_redirect_peer with BPF_F_INGRESS Jordan Rife
2026-06-15 15:15 ` [PATCH v1 bpf-next 0/2] bpf: bpf_redirect_peer egress redirection Paul Chaignon
2026-06-16 20:49 ` Jordan Rife
2026-06-16 22:06 ` Paul Chaignon [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=ajHI0eUUqJpAmKvb@mail.gmail.com \
--to=paul.chaignon@gmail.com \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=jordan@jrife.io \
--cc=martin.lau@linux.dev \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=sdf@fomichev.me \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.