Re: [PATCH 0/2] tools: bpftool: add net (un)load command to load XDP

[Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>]

On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 05:07:25PM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Jul 2019 16:17:56 -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 03:59:15PM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > > On Wed, 31 Jul 2019 03:48:19 +0900, Daniel T. Lee wrote:  
> > > > Currently, bpftool net only supports dumping progs loaded on the
> > > > interface. To load XDP prog on interface, user must use other tool
> > > > (eg. iproute2). By this patch, with `bpftool net (un)load`, user can
> > > > (un)load XDP prog on interface.  
> > > 
> > > I don't understand why using another tool is a bad thing :(
> > > What happened to the Unix philosophy?
> > > 
> > > I remain opposed to duplicating iproute2's functionality under 
> > > bpftool net :( The way to attach bpf programs in the networking
> > > subsystem is through the iproute2 commends - ip and tc.. 
> > > 
> > > It seems easy enough to add a feature to bpftool but from 
> > > a perspective of someone adding a new feature to the kernel, 
> > > and wanting to update user space components it's quite painful :(
> > > 
> > > So could you describe to me in more detail why this is a good idea?
> > > Perhaps others can chime in?  
> > 
> > I don't think it has anything to do with 'unix philosophy'.
> > Here the proposal to teach bpftool to attach xdp progs.
> > I see nothing wrong with that.
> 
> Nothing meaning you disagree it's duplicated effort and unnecessary 
> LoC the community has to maintain, review, test..?

I don't see duplicated effort.

> > Another reason is iproute2 is still far away from adopting libbpf.
> > So all the latest goodness like BTF, introspection, etc will not
> > be available to iproute2 users for some time.
> 
> Duplicating the same features in bpftool will only diminish the
> incentive for moving iproute2 to libbpf. 

not at all. why do you think so?

> And for folks who deal
> with a wide variety of customers, often novices maintaining two
> ways of doing the same thing is a hassle :(

It's not the same thing.
I'm talking about my experience dealing with 'wide variety of bpf customers'.
They only have a fraction of their time to learn one tool.
Making every bpf customer learn ten tools is not an option.

> > Even when iproute2 is ready it would be convenient for folks like me
> > (who need to debug stuff in production) to remember cmd line of
> > bpftool only to introspect the server. Debugging often includes
> > detaching/attaching progs. Not only doing 'bpftool p s'.
> 
> Let's just put the two commands next to each other:
> 
>        ip link set xdp $PROG dev $DEV
> 
> bpftool net attach xdp $PROG dev $DEV
> 
> Are they that different?

yes.
they're different tools with they own upgrade/rollout cycle

> 
> > If bpftool was taught to do equivalent of 'ip link' that would be
> > very different story and I would be opposed to that.
> 
> Yes, that'd be pretty clear cut, only the XDP stuff is a bit more 
> of a judgement call.

bpftool must be able to introspect every aspect of bpf programming.
That includes detaching and attaching anywhere.
Anyone doing 'bpftool p s' should be able to switch off particular
prog id without learning ten different other tools.
iproute2 is a small bit of it. There is cgroup and tracing too.
bpftool should be one tool to do everything directly related to bpf.