Re: [PATCH bpf-next 1/4] xdp: Support specifying expected existing program when attaching XDP

Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2020-03-23T11:24:41Z

Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com> writes:

> On Fri, Mar 20, 2020 at 11:31 AM John Fastabend
> <john.fastabend@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Jakub Kicinski wrote:
>> > On Fri, 20 Mar 2020 09:48:10 +0100 Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
>> > > Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org> writes:
>> > > > On Thu, 19 Mar 2020 14:13:13 +0100 Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
>> > > >> From: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@redhat.com>
>> > > >>
>> > > >> While it is currently possible for userspace to specify that an existing
>> > > >> XDP program should not be replaced when attaching to an interface, there is
>> > > >> no mechanism to safely replace a specific XDP program with another.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> This patch adds a new netlink attribute, IFLA_XDP_EXPECTED_FD, which can be
>> > > >> set along with IFLA_XDP_FD. If set, the kernel will check that the program
>> > > >> currently loaded on the interface matches the expected one, and fail the
>> > > >> operation if it does not. This corresponds to a 'cmpxchg' memory operation.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> A new companion flag, XDP_FLAGS_EXPECT_FD, is also added to explicitly
>> > > >> request checking of the EXPECTED_FD attribute. This is needed for userspace
>> > > >> to discover whether the kernel supports the new attribute.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> Signed-off-by: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@redhat.com>
>> > > >
>> > > > I didn't know we wanted to go ahead with this...
>> > >
>> > > Well, I'm aware of the bpf_link discussion, obviously. Not sure what's
>> > > happening with that, though. So since this is a straight-forward
>> > > extension of the existing API, that doesn't carry a high implementation
>> > > cost, I figured I'd just go ahead with this. Doesn't mean we can't have
>> > > something similar in bpf_link as well, of course.
>> >
>> > I'm not really in the loop, but from what I overheard - I think the
>> > bpf_link may be targeting something non-networking first.
>>
>> My preference is to avoid building two different APIs one for XDP and another
>> for everything else. If we have userlands that already understand links and
>> pinning support is on the way imo lets use these APIs for networking as well.
>
> I agree here. And yes, I've been working on extending bpf_link into
> cgroup and then to XDP. We are still discussing some cgroup-specific
> details, but the patch is ready. I'm going to post it as an RFC to get
> the discussion started, before we do this for XDP.

Well, my reason for being skeptic about bpf_link and proposing the
netlink-based API is actually exactly this, but in reverse: With
bpf_link we will be in the situation that everything related to a netdev
is configured over netlink *except* XDP.

Other than that, I don't see any reason why the bpf_link API won't work.
So I guess that if no one else has any problem with BPF insisting on
being a special snowflake, I guess I can live with it as well... *shrugs* :)

-Toke