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

Alexei Starovoitov
2020-03-31T22:16:23Z

On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 11:05:50PM +0100, Edward Cree wrote:
> On 31/03/2020 04:43, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 04:25:07PM +0100, Edward Cree wrote:
> >> Everything that a human operator can do, so can any program with the
> >>  same capabilities/wheel bits.  Especially as the API that the
> >>  operator-tool uses *will* be open and documented.  The Unix Way does
> >>  not allow unscriptable interfaces, and heavily frowns at any kind of
> >>  distinction between 'humans' and 'programs'.
> > can you share a link on such philosophy?
> It's not quite as explicit about it as I'd like, but
>  http://www.catb.org/esr/writings/taoup/html/ch01s06.html#id2877684
>  is the closest I can find right now.

I knew the bit you linked and I've read several "Rule of" up and down
in that doc and still don't see any mention of 'humans' vs 'programs'.
Unix philosophy can be rephrased as divide-and-conquer which is #1
principle in bpf architecture. In other words: build the smallest
possible mechanisms that are composable.