From: Yann Ylavic <redacted>
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2016 23:40:30 +0100

On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 6:55 PM, Daniel Borkmann wrote:

quoted

On 03/24/2016 06:26 PM, Tom Herbert wrote:

quoted

On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 10:01 AM, Eric Dumazet wrote:

quoted

Really, when BPF can be the solution, we wont allow adding new stuff in
the kernel in the old way.

I completely agree with this, but I wonder if we now need a repository
of useful BPF modules. So in the case of implementing functionality
like in SO_REUSEPORT_LISTEN_OFF that might just become a common BPF
program we could direct people to use.

Good point. There's tools/testing/selftests/net/ containing already
reuseport
BPF example, maybe it could be extended.

FWIW, I find:

    const struct bpf_insn prog[] = {
        /* BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_6, BPF_REG_1) */
        { BPF_ALU64 | BPF_MOV | BPF_X, BPF_REG_6, BPF_REG_1, 0, 0 },
        /* BPF_LD_ABS(BPF_W, 0) R0 = (uint32_t)skb[0] */
        { BPF_LD | BPF_ABS | BPF_W, 0, 0, 0, 0 },
        /* BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_MOD, BPF_REG_0, mod) */
        { BPF_ALU64 | BPF_MOD | BPF_K, BPF_REG_0, 0, 0, mod },
        /* BPF_EXIT_INSN() */
        { BPF_JMP | BPF_EXIT, 0, 0, 0, 0 }
    };
(and all the way to make it run)

something quite unintuitive from a web server developper perspective,
simply to make SO_REUSEPORT work with forked TCP listeners (probably
as it should out of the box)...

If we encapsulate this into libraries and helper wrappers, there is
no reason web server developers should be looking at these details
anyways.

Please don't make a mountain out of a mole-hill.

We build things on top of good infrastructure, rather than build
duplicate ways to do the same exact thing.

BPF is good infrastructure, therefore that is what things will be
built on top of.

Thanks.