Messages in this thread | | | From | Alexei Starovoitov <> | Date | Mon, 2 Mar 2015 08:58:19 -0800 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v5 tip 1/7] bpf: make internal bpf API independent of CONFIG_BPF_SYSCALL ifdefs |
| |
On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 4:26 AM, Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net> wrote: > On 03/02/2015 12:51 PM, Masami Hiramatsu wrote: >> (2015/03/02 20:10), Daniel Borkmann wrote: >>> >>> Well, currently all possible map types (hash table, array map) that >>> would actually call into bpf_register_map_type() are only built when >>> CONFIG_BPF_SYSCALL is enabled (see kernel/bpf/Makefile). I don't think >>> new map additions should be added that are not under kernel/bpf/ and/or >>> enabled outside the CONFIG_BPF_SYSCALL, as it should be considered >>> part of the eBPF core code.
agree. New map types will be only under kernel/bpf/ since this is really core infra that every component should be able to share.
>>> The difference here (this patch) is simply that we don't want users to >>> build ifdef spaghetti constructs in user code, so the API that is >>> actually used by eBPF _users_ is being properly ifdef'ed in the headers.
+1
>> Or, maybe we'd better move them into new include/linux/bpf_prog.h which >> includes basic include/linux/bpf.h. Then, user can include the bpf_prog.h >> instead of bpf.h. Also, we can check CONFIG_BPF_SYSCAL=y at the top of >> bpf_prog.h. This makes things clearer :) > > I'm preferring the 1st variant, though. We have currently two native eBPF > users, that is, socket filters and tc's cls_bpf (queued in net-next) and > looking at the code/API usage, it's really not that hard, where it would > justify to move this to an extra header file, really.
agree. new header seems overkill to fix something that is not an issue today.
| |