Re: [PATCH bpf-next 1/3] libbpf: xsk: use bpf_link
From: Maciej Fijalkowski <maciej.fijalkowski@intel.com>
Date: 2021-02-16 20:25:46
Also in:
bpf
On Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 11:27:55AM +0100, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
Maciej Fijalkowski [off-list ref] writes:quoted
Am I reading this right or you're trying to reject the fix of the long standing issue due to a PR that is not ready yet on a standalone project/library? :PHaha, no, that is not what I'm saying. As I said up-thread I agree that this is something we should fix, obviously. I'm just suggesting we fix it in a way that will also be compatible with libxdp and multiprog so we won't have to introduce yet-another-flag that users will have to decide on. However, now that I'm looking at your patch again I think my fears may have been overblown. I got hung up on the bit in the commit message where you said "refcounting of BPF resources will be done automatically by bpf_link itself", and wrongly assumed that you were exposing the bpf_link fd to the application. But I see now that it's kept in the private xsk_ctx structure, and applications still just call xsk_socket__delete(). So in libxdp we can just implement the same API with a different synchronisation mechanism; that's fine. Apologies for jumping to conclusions :/
No worries, this shows how important a thorough commit message is, seems that I failed on that part.
quoted
Once libxdp is the standard way of playing with AF-XDP and there are actual users of that, then I'm happy to work/help on that issue.That is good to know, thanks! I opened an issue in the xdp-tools repository to track this for the libxdp side (Magnus and I agreed that we'll merge the existing code first, then fix this on top): https://github.com/xdp-project/xdp-tools/issues/93
Thanks! And good to hear that there's some sort of agreement.
As noted above, the mechanism may have to change, but I think it's possible to achieve the same thing in a libxdp context :) -Toke