mirror of
https://github.com/FEX-Emu/linux.git
synced 2025-01-14 13:39:10 +00:00
act_bpf: allow non-default TC_ACT opcodes as BPF exec outcome
Revisiting commit d23b8ad8ab23 ("tc: add BPF based action") with regards to eBPF support, I was thinking that it might be better to improve return semantics from a BPF program invoked through BPF_PROG_RUN(). Currently, in case filter_res is 0, we overwrite the default action opcode with TC_ACT_SHOT. A default action opcode configured through tc's m_bpf can be: TC_ACT_RECLASSIFY, TC_ACT_PIPE, TC_ACT_SHOT, TC_ACT_UNSPEC, TC_ACT_OK. In cls_bpf, we have the possibility to overwrite the default class associated with the classifier in case filter_res is _not_ 0xffffffff (-1). That allows us to fold multiple [e]BPF programs into a single one, where they would otherwise need to be defined as a separate classifier with its own classid, needlessly redoing parsing work, etc. Similarly, we could do better in act_bpf: Since above TC_ACT* opcodes are exported to UAPI anyway, we reuse them for return-code-to-tc-opcode mapping, where we would allow above possibilities. Thus, like in cls_bpf, a filter_res of 0xffffffff (-1) means that the configured _default_ action is used. Any unkown return code from the BPF program would fail in tcf_bpf() with TC_ACT_UNSPEC. Should we one day want to make use of TC_ACT_STOLEN or TC_ACT_QUEUED, which both have the same semantics, we have the option to either use that as a default action (filter_res of 0xffffffff) or non-default BPF return code. All that will allow us to transparently use tcf_bpf() for both BPF flavours. Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net> Cc: Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us> Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@plumgrid.com> Cc: Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@mojatatu.com> Acked-by: Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us> Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
This commit is contained in:
parent
8d7d9cca43
commit
ced585c83b
@ -25,21 +25,41 @@ static int tcf_bpf(struct sk_buff *skb, const struct tc_action *a,
|
||||
struct tcf_result *res)
|
||||
{
|
||||
struct tcf_bpf *b = a->priv;
|
||||
int action;
|
||||
int filter_res;
|
||||
int action, filter_res;
|
||||
|
||||
spin_lock(&b->tcf_lock);
|
||||
|
||||
b->tcf_tm.lastuse = jiffies;
|
||||
bstats_update(&b->tcf_bstats, skb);
|
||||
action = b->tcf_action;
|
||||
|
||||
filter_res = BPF_PROG_RUN(b->filter, skb);
|
||||
if (filter_res == 0) {
|
||||
/* Return code 0 from the BPF program
|
||||
* is being interpreted as a drop here.
|
||||
*/
|
||||
action = TC_ACT_SHOT;
|
||||
|
||||
/* A BPF program may overwrite the default action opcode.
|
||||
* Similarly as in cls_bpf, if filter_res == -1 we use the
|
||||
* default action specified from tc.
|
||||
*
|
||||
* In case a different well-known TC_ACT opcode has been
|
||||
* returned, it will overwrite the default one.
|
||||
*
|
||||
* For everything else that is unkown, TC_ACT_UNSPEC is
|
||||
* returned.
|
||||
*/
|
||||
switch (filter_res) {
|
||||
case TC_ACT_PIPE:
|
||||
case TC_ACT_RECLASSIFY:
|
||||
case TC_ACT_OK:
|
||||
action = filter_res;
|
||||
break;
|
||||
case TC_ACT_SHOT:
|
||||
action = filter_res;
|
||||
b->tcf_qstats.drops++;
|
||||
break;
|
||||
case TC_ACT_UNSPEC:
|
||||
action = b->tcf_action;
|
||||
break;
|
||||
default:
|
||||
action = TC_ACT_UNSPEC;
|
||||
break;
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
spin_unlock(&b->tcf_lock);
|
||||
|
Loading…
x
Reference in New Issue
Block a user