BPF List
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Toke Høiland-Jørgensen" <toke@redhat.com>
To: David Ahern <dsahern@kernel.org>,
	Avinash Duduskar <avinash.duduskar@gmail.com>,
	ast@kernel.org, daniel@iogearbox.net, andrii@kernel.org
Cc: eddyz87@gmail.com, memxor@gmail.com, martin.lau@linux.dev,
	song@kernel.org, yonghong.song@linux.dev, jolsa@kernel.org,
	emil@etsalapatis.com, john.fastabend@gmail.com, sdf@fomichev.me,
	davem@davemloft.net, edumazet@google.com, kuba@kernel.org,
	pabeni@redhat.com, horms@kernel.org, shuah@kernel.org,
	hawk@kernel.org, yatsenko@meta.com, leon.hwang@linux.dev,
	kpsingh@kernel.org, a.s.protopopov@gmail.com,
	ameryhung@gmail.com, rongtao@cestc.cn, eyal.birger@gmail.com,
	bpf@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v5 1/3] bpf: Add BPF_FIB_LOOKUP_VLAN flag to bpf_fib_lookup() helper
Date: Thu, 02 Jul 2026 16:47:32 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <87ik6x1m9n.fsf@toke.dk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <9d14ff4b-eadd-4ae2-ab68-5927d4f19eeb@kernel.org>

David Ahern <dsahern@kernel.org> writes:

> On 7/1/26 5:02 AM, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
>> David Ahern <dsahern@kernel.org> writes:
>>> Seems to me the fib_lookup for xdp needs to return the bottom device,
>>> not the vlan device, for forwarding to work. That's why I added the
>>> fields to the struct. That allows the program to push the vlan header if
>>> required. My preference (dream?) was that Tx path had support to tell
>>> the redirect the vlan and h/w added it on send.
>> 
>> Sure, returning the bottom device index with the VLAN tag makes sense,
>> and that's basically what this series does (but bails out on stacked
>> VLANs). However, that's not what the helper does today, which is why the
>> flag is there, to opt-in to the new behaviour. I don't think we can just
>> change the ifindex without breaking existing applications (as noted
>> up-thread).
>
> I do not see it as breaking existing programs which is why I chimed in
> on the thread.
>
>> 
>>> But really, once stacked devices come into play, I just wanted to make
>>> sure thought is given to different use cases. As you know the lookup
>>> struct if hard bound to 64B and it is trying to cover a lot of use cases.
>> 
>> Agreed, I don't think we can handle stacked devices in this helper. But
>> we could split it out into a new one. Something like:
>> 
>> struct lower_device_info {
>> 	enum device_type type;
>> 	struct {
>> 		__be16	h_vlan_proto;
>> 		__be16	h_vlan_TCI;
>> 	} vlan;
>>         /* add other types here */
>> };
>> 
>> int xdp_get_lower_device(int ifindex, struct lower_device_info *info);
>> 
>> called like:
>> 
>> int xdp_program(struct xdp_md *ctx)
>> {
>>         struct lower_device_info dev_info = {};
>> 	int ifindex, ret;
>> 
>>         ifindex = find_destination(ctx); /* does fib lookup, or something else */
>> 
>>         while ((ret = xdp_get_lower_device_info(ifindex, &dev_info)) > 0) {
>>         	if (dev_info.type == VLAN) {
>>                       	push_vlan_tag(ctx, &dev_info.vlan);
>>                         ifindex = ret;
>>                 } else {
>>                 	return XDP_PASS; /* we only handle VLAN devices */
>>                 }
>>         }
>> 
>>         return bpf_redirect(ifindex, 0);
>> }
>> 
>> 
>> With a helper like this, we obviously don't strictly speaking need to
>> change the fib lookup helper at all. However, for the single-tagged VLAN
>> case, I think supporting it directly in the fib lookup could still have
>> value, as an optimisation: it saves an extra call for resolving the
>> ifindex, and the fields are already there. So I think my preference
>> would be to merge this series as-is, and then follow up with a new kfunc
>> to handle the stacked case. But we could also just drop this series and
>> go straight to the new kfunc.
>> 
>> WDYT?
>
> no preference. I only chimed in because of the added flag to the uapi
> which I do not see as needed. If the consensus is that it is in fact
> needed, all good then.

Alright, cool - care to provide an ACK, then? :)

-Toke


  reply	other threads:[~2026-07-02 14:47 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-06-24  3:05 [PATCH bpf-next v5 0/3] bpf: bidirectional VLAN support for bpf_fib_lookup() Avinash Duduskar
2026-06-24  3:05 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 1/3] bpf: Add BPF_FIB_LOOKUP_VLAN flag to bpf_fib_lookup() helper Avinash Duduskar
2026-06-24  9:33   ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2026-06-24 11:54     ` Avinash Duduskar
2026-06-29 15:11       ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2026-06-26 16:25   ` David Ahern
2026-06-29 15:08     ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2026-06-29 15:49       ` David Ahern
2026-06-30 10:00         ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2026-06-30 14:18           ` David Ahern
2026-06-30 16:04             ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2026-06-30 17:13               ` David Ahern
2026-07-01 11:02                 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2026-07-01 15:08                   ` David Ahern
2026-07-02 14:47                     ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen [this message]
2026-06-24  3:05 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 2/3] bpf: Add BPF_FIB_LOOKUP_VLAN_INPUT " Avinash Duduskar
2026-06-24  3:05 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 3/3] selftests/bpf: Add bpf_fib_lookup() VLAN flag tests Avinash Duduskar
2026-06-24  3:15   ` sashiko-bot

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=87ik6x1m9n.fsf@toke.dk \
    --to=toke@redhat.com \
    --cc=a.s.protopopov@gmail.com \
    --cc=ameryhung@gmail.com \
    --cc=andrii@kernel.org \
    --cc=ast@kernel.org \
    --cc=avinash.duduskar@gmail.com \
    --cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
    --cc=davem@davemloft.net \
    --cc=dsahern@kernel.org \
    --cc=eddyz87@gmail.com \
    --cc=edumazet@google.com \
    --cc=emil@etsalapatis.com \
    --cc=eyal.birger@gmail.com \
    --cc=hawk@kernel.org \
    --cc=horms@kernel.org \
    --cc=john.fastabend@gmail.com \
    --cc=jolsa@kernel.org \
    --cc=kpsingh@kernel.org \
    --cc=kuba@kernel.org \
    --cc=leon.hwang@linux.dev \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=martin.lau@linux.dev \
    --cc=memxor@gmail.com \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=pabeni@redhat.com \
    --cc=rongtao@cestc.cn \
    --cc=sdf@fomichev.me \
    --cc=shuah@kernel.org \
    --cc=song@kernel.org \
    --cc=yatsenko@meta.com \
    --cc=yonghong.song@linux.dev \
    /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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox