Daniel Borkmann <daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On 6/10/25 10:12 PM, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
>> Daniel Borkmann <daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> [...]
>>> Also, have you thought about taking the opportunity to generalize the existing
>>> struct xsk_tx_metadata? It would be nice to actually use the same/similar struct
>>> for RX and TX, similarly as done in struct virtio_net_hdr. Such that we have
>>> XDP_{RX,TX}_METADATA and XDP_{RX,TX}MD_FLAGS_* to describe what meta data we
>>> have and from a developer PoV this will be a nicely consistent API in XDP. Then
>>> you could store at the right location in the meta data region just with
>>> bpf_xdp_metadata_* kfuncs (and/or plain BPF code) and finally set XDP_RX_METADATA
>>> indicator bit.
>>
>> Wouldn't this make the whole thing (effectively) UAPI?
>
> I'm not sure I follow, we already have this in place for the meta data
> region in AF_XDP, this would extend the scope to RX as well, so there
> would be a similar 'look and feel' in that sense it is already a
> developer API which is used.
Right, but with this series, the format of struct xdp_rx_meta is
internal kernel API that we can change whenever we want. Whereas
exposing it to AF_XDP would make it an UAPI contract, no? IIRC, the
whole point of using kfuncs to extract the metadata from the drivers was
to avoid defining a UAPI format. This does make things a bit more
cumbersome for AF_XDP, but if we are going to expose a struct format for
this we might as well get rid of the whole kfunc machinery just have the
drivers populate the struct before executing XDP?
Or am I misunderstanding what you're proposing?
-Toke
