Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > On 8/20/25 5:24 PM, Roman Gushchin wrote: >>> How is it decided who gets to run before the other? Is it based on >>> order of attachment (which can be non-deterministic)? >> Yeah, now it's the order of attachment. >> >>> There was a lot of discussion on something similar for tc progs, and >>> we went with specific flags that capture partial ordering constraints >>> (instead of priorities that may collide). >>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230719140858.13224-2-daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx >>> It would be nice if we can find a way of making this consistent. > > +1 > > The cgroup bpf prog has recently added the mprog api support also. If > the simple order of attachment is not enough and needs to have > specific ordering, we should make the bpf struct_ops support the same > mprog api instead of asking each subsystem creating its own. > > fyi, another need for struct_ops ordering is to upgrade the > BPF_PROG_TYPE_SOCK_OPS api to struct_ops for easier extension in the > future. Slide 13 in > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1wjKZth6T0llLJ_ONPAL_6Q_jbxbAjByp/view Does it mean it's better now to keep it simple in the context of oom patches with the plan to later reuse the generic struct_ops infrastructure? Honestly, I believe that the simple order of attachment should be good enough for quite a while, so I'd not over-complicate this, unless it's not fixable later. Thanks!
