| Message ID | 1677576294-33411-1-git-send-email-alibuda@linux.alibaba.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| Headers | show |
| Series | net/smc: Introduce BPF injection capability | expand |
On Tue, 28 Feb 2023 17:24:50 +0800 D. Wythe wrote: > From: "D. Wythe" <alibuda@linux.alibaba.com> > > This patches attempt to introduce BPF injection capability for SMC, > and add selftest to ensure code stability. What happened to fixing the issues Al pointed out long, long time ago? https://lore.kernel.org/all/YutBc9aCQOvPPlWN@ZenIV/
On 3/1/23 7:00 AM, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > On Tue, 28 Feb 2023 17:24:50 +0800 D. Wythe wrote: >> From: "D. Wythe" <alibuda@linux.alibaba.com> >> >> This patches attempt to introduce BPF injection capability for SMC, >> and add selftest to ensure code stability. > > What happened to fixing the issues Al pointed out long, long time ago? > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/YutBc9aCQOvPPlWN@ZenIV/ Sorry about that, I don't know much details about this issues. But I have already fed back the problem to Tony Lu, he will give a reply soon, thank you. D. Wythe
On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 03:00:51PM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > On Tue, 28 Feb 2023 17:24:50 +0800 D. Wythe wrote: > > From: "D. Wythe" <alibuda@linux.alibaba.com> > > > > This patches attempt to introduce BPF injection capability for SMC, > > and add selftest to ensure code stability. > > What happened to fixing the issues Al pointed out long, long time ago? > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/YutBc9aCQOvPPlWN@ZenIV/ Actually, this patch set is going to replace the patch of TCP ULP for SMC. If this patch set is accepted, I am going to revert that patch. For the reasons, the TCP ULP for SMC doesn't use wildly. It's not possible to know which applications are suitable to be replaced with SMC. But it's easier to detect the behavior of applications and determine whether to replace applications with SMC. And this patch set is going to fallback to TCP by behavior with eBPF. So this is the _fix_ for that patch. Thank you, Tony Lu
On Wed, 1 Mar 2023 10:41:57 +0800 Tony Lu wrote: > Actually, this patch set is going to replace the patch of TCP ULP for > SMC. If this patch set is accepted, I am going to revert that patch. > > For the reasons, the TCP ULP for SMC doesn't use wildly. It's not > possible to know which applications are suitable to be replaced with > SMC. But it's easier to detect the behavior of applications and > determine whether to replace applications with SMC. And this patch set > is going to fallback to TCP by behavior with eBPF. > > So this is the _fix_ for that patch. Good to hear, I was worried you'd still want to install the ULP at some point whether the decision is via BPF or user space.
From: "D. Wythe" <alibuda@linux.alibaba.com> This patches attempt to introduce BPF injection capability for SMC, and add selftest to ensure code stability. As we all know that the SMC protocol is not suitable for all scenarios, especially for short-lived. However, for most applications, they cannot guarantee that there are no such scenarios at all. Therefore, apps may need some specific strategies to decide shall we need to use SMC or not, for example, apps can limit the scope of the SMC to a specific IP address or port. Based on the consideration of transparent replacement, we hope that apps can remain transparent even if they need to formulate some specific strategies for SMC using. That is, do not need to recompile their code. On the other hand, we need to ensure the scalability of strategies implementation. Although it is simple to use socket options or sysctl, it will bring more complexity to subsequent expansion. Fortunately, BPF can solve these concerns very well, users can write thire own strategies in eBPF to choose whether to use SMC or not. And it's quite easy for them to modify their strategies in the future. This patches implement injection capability for SMC via struct_ops. In that way, we can add new injection scenarios in the future. v3 -> v2: 1. fix checkpatch error and warning. 2. split patch for better review. 3. enhance selftest to cover more scenarios. v2 -> v1: 1. fix compile error and warning. D. Wythe (4): net/smc: move smc_sock related structure definition bpf: add SMC support in BPF struct_ops net/smc: add BPF injection on smc negotiation bpf/selftests: add selftest for SMC bpf capability include/linux/btf_ids.h | 12 + include/net/smc.h | 248 ++++++++++++++++++ kernel/bpf/bpf_struct_ops_types.h | 4 + net/Makefile | 5 + net/smc/af_smc.c | 15 +- net/smc/bpf_smc_struct_ops.c | 148 +++++++++++ net/smc/smc.h | 224 ---------------- tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/bpf_smc.c | 37 +++ tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/bpf_smc.c | 320 +++++++++++++++++++++++ 9 files changed, 788 insertions(+), 225 deletions(-) create mode 100644 net/smc/bpf_smc_struct_ops.c create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/bpf_smc.c create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/bpf_smc.c