Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 1/7] bpf: Add generic attach/detach/query API for multi-progs

[Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@google.com>]

On 06/08, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 8, 2023 at 4:55 PM Alexei Starovoitov
> <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 8, 2023 at 4:06 PM Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@google.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm not really concerned about our production environment. It's pretty
> > > controlled and restricted and I'm pretty certain we can avoid doing
> > > something stupid. Probably the same for your env.
> > >
> > > I'm mostly fantasizing about upstream world where different users don't
> > > know about each other and start doing stupid things like F_FIRST where
> > > they don't really have to be first. It's that "used judiciously" part
> > > that I'm a bit skeptical about :-D
> > >
> > > Because even with this new ordering scheme, there still should be
> > > some entity to do relative ordering (systemd-style, maybe CNI?).
> > > And if it does the ordering, I don't really see why we need
> > > F_FIRST/F_LAST.
> >
> > +1.
> > I have the same concerns as expressed during lsfmmbpf.
> > This first/last is a foot gun.
> > It puts the whole API back into a single user situation.
> > Without "first api" the users are forced to talk to each other
> > and come up with an arbitration mechanism. A daemon to control
> > the order or something like that.
> > With "first api" there is no incentive to do so.
> 
> If Cilium and some other company X both produce, say, anti-DDOS
> solution which cannot co-exist with any other anti-DDOS program and
> either of them needs to guarantee that their program runs first, then
> FIRST is what would be used by both to prevent accidental breakage of
> each other (which is basically what happened with Cilium and some
> other networking solution, don't remember the name). It's better for
> one of them to loudly fail to attach than silently break other
> solution with end users struggling to understand what's going on.
> 
> You and Stanislav keep insisting that any combination of any BPF
> programs should co-exist, and I don't understand why we can or should
> presume that. I think we are conflating generic API (and kernel *not*
> making any assumptions about such API usage) with encouraging
> collaborative BPF attachment policies. They are orthogonal and are not
> in conflict with each other.
> 
> But we lived without FIRST/LAST guarantees till now, that's fine, I'll
> stop fighting this.

I'm not saying this situation where there are several incompatible programs
doesn't exist. All I'm saying is that imo this is a policy that doesn't
belong to the kernel. Or maybe even let's put it that way: F_FIRST and
F_LAST isn't flexible enough to express this policy. External
systemd-like arbiter should express the dependencies/ordering/conflicts/etc.
And F_BEFORE and F_AFTER is enough for that sysmted-like entity to do the
rest.