From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 4/5] ipv6: sr: Add seg6local action End.BPF
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2018 17:01:43 -0700
Message-ID: <20180428000141.f63iw36nfr3bbz2r@ast-mbp>
References: <cover.1524591163.git.m.xhonneux@gmail.com>
 <cover.1524591163.git.m.xhonneux@gmail.com>
 <223e33f96b2cb9868a55a686c5d9321162a67ddb.1524591163.git.m.xhonneux@gmail.com>
 <20180427.105919.1774690223194208745.davem@davemloft.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: m.xhonneux@gmail.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, dlebrun@google.com,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
To: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Return-path: <netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mail-pf0-f174.google.com ([209.85.192.174]:37708 "EHLO
        mail-pf0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S933146AbeD1ABq (ORCPT
        <rfc822;netdev@vger.kernel.org>); Fri, 27 Apr 2018 20:01:46 -0400
Received: by mail-pf0-f174.google.com with SMTP id p6so2572827pfn.4
        for <netdev@vger.kernel.org>; Fri, 27 Apr 2018 17:01:46 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20180427.105919.1774690223194208745.davem@davemloft.net>
Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <netdev.vger.kernel.org>

On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 10:59:19AM -0400, David Miller wrote:
> From: Mathieu Xhonneux <m.xhonneux@gmail.com>
> Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2018 18:44:15 +0100
> 
> > This patch adds the End.BPF action to the LWT seg6local infrastructure.
> > This action works like any other seg6local End action, meaning that an IPv6
> > header with SRH is needed, whose DA has to be equal to the SID of the
> > action. It will also advance the SRH to the next segment, the BPF program
> > does not have to take care of this.
> 
> I'd like to see some BPF developers review this change.
> 
> But on my side I wonder if, instead of validating the whole thing afterwards,
> we should make the helpers accessible by the eBPF program validate the changes
> as they are made.

Looking at the code I don't think it's possible to keep it valid all the time
while building, so seg6_validate_srh() after the program run seems necessary.

I think the whole set should be targeting bpf-next tree.
Please fix kbuild errors, rebase and document new helper in man-page style.
Things like:
+	test_btf_haskv.o test_btf_nokv.o test_lwt_seg6local.o
+>>>>>>> selftests/bpf: test for seg6local End.BPF action
should be fixed properly.