Re: [PATCH] net: introduce SO_BPF_EXTENSIONS
From: Daniel Borkmann <hidden>
Date: 2013-11-29 14:13:13
On 11/28/2013 06:31 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
On Thu, 2013-11-28 at 12:57 +0100, Michal Sekletar wrote:quoted
+enum { + BPF_ANC_FLAG_PROTOCOL = (1 << 0), + BPF_ANC_FLAG_PKTTYPE = (1 << 1), + BPF_ANC_FLAG_IFINDEX = (1 << 2), + BPF_ANC_FLAG_NLATTR = (1 << 3), + BPF_ANC_FLAG_NLATTR_NEST = (1 << 4), + BPF_ANC_FLAG_MARK = (1 << 5), + BPF_ANC_FLAG_QUEUE = (1 << 6), + BPF_ANC_FLAG_HATYPE = (1 << 7), + BPF_ANC_FLAG_RXHASH = (1 << 8), + BPF_ANC_FLAG_CPU = (1 << 9), + BPF_ANC_FLAG_ALU_XOR_X = (1 << 10), + BPF_ANC_FLAG_SECCOMP_LD_W = (1 << 11), + BPF_ANC_FLAG_VLAN_TAG = (1 << 12), + BPF_ANC_FLAG_VLAN_TAG_PRESENT = (1 << 13), + BPF_ANC_FLAG_PAY_OFFSET = (1 << 14), +}; +Why spending 15 bits (out of 32), for all these extensions ? It seems a single one should be enough. I do not think we will ever remove one of these extension.
Agreed, this will just cripple of us adding other extensions in terms of uapi. I assume there won't be so much more extensions, but it's of course hard to predict the future. ;-)