From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from out199-16.us.a.mail.aliyun.com (out199-16.us.a.mail.aliyun.com [47.90.199.16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 03F8320F09B; Wed, 5 Feb 2025 08:02:50 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=47.90.199.16 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1738742576; cv=none; b=nAkfMoX1rIBY8oWS1WlFQlQ4u7PpkffPzTWMJV5EfIrxG5NvdcTfBzQRp6h0gFMpKeZemPIIg8tEd7L8PAge3p/tvn0v7YXloZNc/daQ2+dhyAPMnqliMCS4d79DHcEiLxr1GVkokybYP/3jMrjF5KLbcZI0FI/K84MUks1vMQM= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1738742576; c=relaxed/simple; bh=u08HtmoR3gjyR8lSKU9dYPRmR+YL7GM5wtJ6j/Ioiac=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=nAFGruo0GQ9mTP3mMoVkL1y4rjtKasCwiRGueMkVBC+Dmfg+LL3SbG2uqEgUzwo9dNtsS/IWqz4z3GuFdRgNlmRcjWrzj9YmTWfqDIupkRo4gy8twGpLTYpnFb9i+ZxWg7qC1HfV70Rl2wa04DwGB/F4iTR2FeLdDinWtfb6qQ0= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.alibaba.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.alibaba.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux.alibaba.com header.i=@linux.alibaba.com header.b=A5M+Vvr4; arc=none smtp.client-ip=47.90.199.16 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.alibaba.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.alibaba.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux.alibaba.com header.i=@linux.alibaba.com header.b="A5M+Vvr4" DKIM-Signature:v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linux.alibaba.com; s=default; t=1738742551; h=Date:From:To:Subject:Message-ID:MIME-Version:Content-Type; bh=7GaEyfI7UicQBv1sg4JfW3DT68PYKPedGIl8mINzZOI=; b=A5M+Vvr4LhZzusgoy/CzI657NkVXqlFPRS0/8N87W4jY4FvUopy/MqDOSp8jRUhJ62Y7fVG7h721LxbLjrCeGygLWHXdkT/eix259S4g9p+2gLSkAwgJOE4yoDrOqEXRlwfdgskKmffAba8XXmc0O5jjh9ftgqwIjoR1XxOkXHI= Received: from localhost(mailfrom:alibuda@linux.alibaba.com fp:SMTPD_---0WOoxC9D_1738742548 cluster:ay36) by smtp.aliyun-inc.com; Wed, 05 Feb 2025 16:02:29 +0800 Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2025 16:02:28 +0800 From: "D. Wythe" To: Gerd Bayer Cc: dust.li@linux.alibaba.com, "D. Wythe" , kgraul@linux.ibm.com, wenjia@linux.ibm.com, jaka@linux.ibm.com, ast@kernel.org, daniel@iogearbox.net, andrii@kernel.org, martin.lau@linux.dev, pabeni@redhat.com, song@kernel.org, sdf@google.com, haoluo@google.com, yhs@fb.com, edumazet@google.com, john.fastabend@gmail.com, kpsingh@kernel.org, jolsa@kernel.org, guwen@linux.alibaba.com, kuba@kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org, bpf@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v7 3/6] net/smc: Introduce generic hook smc_ops Message-ID: <20250205080228.GA57822@j66a10360.sqa.eu95> References: <20250123015942.94810-1-alibuda@linux.alibaba.com> <20250123015942.94810-4-alibuda@linux.alibaba.com> <20250123073034.GQ89233@linux.alibaba.com> <6685f9266702dcf0a3123f9be7c1c0200a5f4032.camel@linux.ibm.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <6685f9266702dcf0a3123f9be7c1c0200a5f4032.camel@linux.ibm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) On Thu, Jan 23, 2025 at 11:15:21AM +0100, Gerd Bayer wrote: > On Thu, 2025-01-23 at 15:30 +0800, Dust Li wrote: > > On 2025-01-23 09:59:39, D. Wythe wrote: > > > The introduction of IPPROTO_SMC enables eBPF programs to determine > > > whether to use SMC based on the context of socket creation, such as > > > network namespaces, PID and comm name, etc. > > > > > > > I'm still not completely satisfied with the name smc_ops. Since this > > will be the API for our users, we need to be carefull on the name. > > If I may jump in with a suggestion here: > On my first glance, I'd expect SMC_OPS to offer OPS as a general API. > The description however suggest that this adds "contol points" or hooks > in the SMC code, that eBPF programs can use to tweak the protocol's > behavior. Exclusively eBPF programs, it seems. > > So how about naming this SMC_EBPF_HOOKS or SMC_EBPF_SUPPORT? > > Just my 2ct, > Gerd Hi all, Thanks for all the suggestion.It seems that the naming of this ops has indeed sparked some controversy. However, I still oppose explicitly linking the name to BPF. As I mentioned earlier, this ops is not strongly tied to BPF implementations, kernel modules can also implement them. I used ChatGPT to generate some potential names, including: smc_ops / smc_hook / smc_aug / smc_ext / smc_alert / smc_support Perhaps these can be used as references. However, in any case, these changes need to be acked by the SMC maintainer, but for what I can tell, the maintainer of SMC is currently on leave, so this discussion may still take some time. Best wishes, D. Wythe > > > > > It seems like you're aiming to define a common set of operations, but > > the implementation appears to be intertwined with BPF. If this is > > intended to be a common interface, and if we are using another operation, > > there shouldn’t be a need to hold a BPF reference. > > > > As your 'help' sugguest, What about smc_hook ? > > > > Best regards, > > Dust > > > >