| Message ID | 20230710201218.19460-5-daniel@iogearbox.net (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded |
| Delegated to: | BPF |
| Headers | show |
| Series | BPF link support for tc BPF programs | expand |
On Mon, Jul 10, 2023 at 1:12 PM Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net> wrote: > > Implement tcx BPF link support for libbpf. > > The bpf_program__attach_fd() API has been refactored slightly in order to pass > bpf_link_create_opts pointer as input. > > A new bpf_program__attach_tcx() has been added on top of this which allows for > passing all relevant data via extensible struct bpf_tcx_opts. > > The program sections tcx/ingress and tcx/egress correspond to the hook locations > for tc ingress and egress, respectively. > > For concrete usage examples, see the extensive selftests that have been > developed as part of this series. > > Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net> > --- > tools/lib/bpf/bpf.c | 19 ++++++++++-- > tools/lib/bpf/bpf.h | 5 ++++ > tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c | 62 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------ > tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.h | 16 +++++++++++ > tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.map | 1 + > 5 files changed, 92 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-) > Pretty minor nits, I think ifindex move to be mandatory argument is the most consequential, as it's an API. With that addressed, please add my ack for next rev Acked-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org> > diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/bpf.c b/tools/lib/bpf/bpf.c > index 3dfc43b477c3..d513c226b9aa 100644 > --- a/tools/lib/bpf/bpf.c > +++ b/tools/lib/bpf/bpf.c > @@ -717,9 +717,9 @@ int bpf_link_create(int prog_fd, int target_fd, > const struct bpf_link_create_opts *opts) > { > const size_t attr_sz = offsetofend(union bpf_attr, link_create); > - __u32 target_btf_id, iter_info_len; > + __u32 target_btf_id, iter_info_len, relative_id; > + int fd, err, relative; nit: maybe make these new vars local to the TCX cases branch below? > union bpf_attr attr; > - int fd, err; > > if (!OPTS_VALID(opts, bpf_link_create_opts)) > return libbpf_err(-EINVAL); > @@ -781,6 +781,21 @@ int bpf_link_create(int prog_fd, int target_fd, > if (!OPTS_ZEROED(opts, netfilter)) > return libbpf_err(-EINVAL); > break; > + case BPF_TCX_INGRESS: > + case BPF_TCX_EGRESS: > + relative = OPTS_GET(opts, tcx.relative_fd, 0); > + relative_id = OPTS_GET(opts, tcx.relative_id, 0); > + if (relative > 0 && relative_id) > + return libbpf_err(-EINVAL); > + if (relative_id) { > + relative = relative_id; > + attr.link_create.flags |= BPF_F_ID; > + } Well, I have the same nit as in the previous patch, this "relative = relative_id" is both confusing because of naming asymmetry (no relative_fd throws me off), and also unnecessary updating of the state. link_create.flags |= BPF_F_ID is inevitable, but the rest can be more straightforward, IMO > + attr.link_create.tcx.relative_fd = relative; > + attr.link_create.tcx.expected_revision = OPTS_GET(opts, tcx.expected_revision, 0); > + if (!OPTS_ZEROED(opts, tcx)) > + return libbpf_err(-EINVAL); > + break; > default: > if (!OPTS_ZEROED(opts, flags)) > return libbpf_err(-EINVAL); [...] > +struct bpf_link * > +bpf_program__attach_tcx(const struct bpf_program *prog, > + const struct bpf_tcx_opts *opts) > +{ > + LIBBPF_OPTS(bpf_link_create_opts, link_create_opts); > + __u32 relative_id, flags; > + int ifindex, relative_fd; > + > + if (!OPTS_VALID(opts, bpf_tcx_opts)) > + return libbpf_err_ptr(-EINVAL); > + > + relative_id = OPTS_GET(opts, relative_id, 0); > + relative_fd = OPTS_GET(opts, relative_fd, 0); > + flags = OPTS_GET(opts, flags, 0); > + ifindex = OPTS_GET(opts, ifindex, 0); > + > + /* validate we don't have unexpected combinations of non-zero fields */ > + if (!ifindex) { > + pr_warn("prog '%s': target netdevice ifindex cannot be zero\n", > + prog->name); > + return libbpf_err_ptr(-EINVAL); > + } given ifindex is non-optional, then it makes more sense to have it as a mandatory argument between prog and opts in bpf_program__attach_tcx(), instead of as a field of an opts struct > + if (relative_fd > 0 && relative_id) { this asymmetrical check is a bit distracting. And also, if someone specifies negative FD and positive ID, that's also a bad combo and we shouldn't just ignore invalid FD, right? So I'd have a nice and clean if (relative_fd && relative_id) { /* bad */ } > + pr_warn("prog '%s': relative_fd and relative_id cannot be set at the same time\n", > + prog->name); > + return libbpf_err_ptr(-EINVAL); > + } > + if (relative_id) > + flags |= BPF_F_ID; I think bpf_link_create() will add this flag anyways, so can drop this adjustment logic here? > + > + link_create_opts.tcx.expected_revision = OPTS_GET(opts, expected_revision, 0); > + link_create_opts.tcx.relative_fd = relative_fd; > + link_create_opts.tcx.relative_id = relative_id; > + link_create_opts.flags = flags; > + > + /* target_fd/target_ifindex use the same field in LINK_CREATE */ > + return bpf_program_attach_fd(prog, ifindex, "tc", &link_create_opts); s/tc/tcx/ ? > } > > struct bpf_link *bpf_program__attach_freplace(const struct bpf_program *prog, > @@ -11917,11 +11956,16 @@ struct bpf_link *bpf_program__attach_freplace(const struct bpf_program *prog, > } > > if (target_fd) { > + LIBBPF_OPTS(bpf_link_create_opts, target_opts); > + > btf_id = libbpf_find_prog_btf_id(attach_func_name, target_fd); > if (btf_id < 0) > return libbpf_err_ptr(btf_id); > > - return bpf_program__attach_fd(prog, target_fd, btf_id, "freplace"); > + target_opts.target_btf_id = btf_id; > + > + return bpf_program_attach_fd(prog, target_fd, "freplace", > + &target_opts); > } else { > /* no target, so use raw_tracepoint_open for compatibility > * with old kernels > diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.h b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.h > index 10642ad69d76..33f60a318e81 100644 > --- a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.h > +++ b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.h > @@ -733,6 +733,22 @@ LIBBPF_API struct bpf_link * > bpf_program__attach_netfilter(const struct bpf_program *prog, > const struct bpf_netfilter_opts *opts); > > +struct bpf_tcx_opts { > + /* size of this struct, for forward/backward compatibility */ > + size_t sz; > + int ifindex; is ifindex optional or it's expected to always be specified? If the latter, then I'd move ifindex out of opts and make it second arg of bpf_program__attach_tcx, between prog and opts > + __u32 flags; > + __u32 relative_fd; > + __u32 relative_id; > + __u64 expected_revision; > + size_t :0; > +}; > +#define bpf_tcx_opts__last_field expected_revision > + > +LIBBPF_API struct bpf_link * > +bpf_program__attach_tcx(const struct bpf_program *prog, > + const struct bpf_tcx_opts *opts); > + > struct bpf_map; > > LIBBPF_API struct bpf_link *bpf_map__attach_struct_ops(const struct bpf_map *map); > diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.map b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.map > index a95d39bbef90..2a2db5c78048 100644 > --- a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.map > +++ b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.map > @@ -397,4 +397,5 @@ LIBBPF_1.3.0 { > bpf_obj_pin_opts; > bpf_program__attach_netfilter; > bpf_prog_detach_opts; > + bpf_program__attach_tcx; heh, now we definitely screwed up sorting ;) > } LIBBPF_1.2.0; > -- > 2.34.1 >
On 7/11/23 6:00 AM, Andrii Nakryiko wrote: > On Mon, Jul 10, 2023 at 1:12 PM Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net> wrote: >> >> Implement tcx BPF link support for libbpf. >> >> The bpf_program__attach_fd() API has been refactored slightly in order to pass >> bpf_link_create_opts pointer as input. >> >> A new bpf_program__attach_tcx() has been added on top of this which allows for >> passing all relevant data via extensible struct bpf_tcx_opts. >> >> The program sections tcx/ingress and tcx/egress correspond to the hook locations >> for tc ingress and egress, respectively. >> >> For concrete usage examples, see the extensive selftests that have been >> developed as part of this series. >> >> Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net> >> --- >> tools/lib/bpf/bpf.c | 19 ++++++++++-- >> tools/lib/bpf/bpf.h | 5 ++++ >> tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c | 62 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------ >> tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.h | 16 +++++++++++ >> tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.map | 1 + >> 5 files changed, 92 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-) >> > > Pretty minor nits, I think ifindex move to be mandatory argument is > the most consequential, as it's an API. With that addressed, please > add my ack for next rev > > Acked-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org> > >> diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/bpf.c b/tools/lib/bpf/bpf.c >> index 3dfc43b477c3..d513c226b9aa 100644 >> --- a/tools/lib/bpf/bpf.c >> +++ b/tools/lib/bpf/bpf.c >> @@ -717,9 +717,9 @@ int bpf_link_create(int prog_fd, int target_fd, >> const struct bpf_link_create_opts *opts) >> { >> const size_t attr_sz = offsetofend(union bpf_attr, link_create); >> - __u32 target_btf_id, iter_info_len; >> + __u32 target_btf_id, iter_info_len, relative_id; >> + int fd, err, relative; > > nit: maybe make these new vars local to the TCX cases branch below? > >> union bpf_attr attr; >> - int fd, err; >> >> if (!OPTS_VALID(opts, bpf_link_create_opts)) >> return libbpf_err(-EINVAL); >> @@ -781,6 +781,21 @@ int bpf_link_create(int prog_fd, int target_fd, >> if (!OPTS_ZEROED(opts, netfilter)) >> return libbpf_err(-EINVAL); >> break; >> + case BPF_TCX_INGRESS: >> + case BPF_TCX_EGRESS: >> + relative = OPTS_GET(opts, tcx.relative_fd, 0); >> + relative_id = OPTS_GET(opts, tcx.relative_id, 0); >> + if (relative > 0 && relative_id) >> + return libbpf_err(-EINVAL); >> + if (relative_id) { >> + relative = relative_id; >> + attr.link_create.flags |= BPF_F_ID; >> + } > > Well, I have the same nit as in the previous patch, this "relative = > relative_id" is both confusing because of naming asymmetry (no > relative_fd throws me off), and also unnecessary updating of the > state. link_create.flags |= BPF_F_ID is inevitable, but the rest can > be more straightforward, IMO > >> + attr.link_create.tcx.relative_fd = relative; >> + attr.link_create.tcx.expected_revision = OPTS_GET(opts, tcx.expected_revision, 0); >> + if (!OPTS_ZEROED(opts, tcx)) >> + return libbpf_err(-EINVAL); >> + break; >> default: >> if (!OPTS_ZEROED(opts, flags)) >> return libbpf_err(-EINVAL); > > [...] > >> +struct bpf_link * >> +bpf_program__attach_tcx(const struct bpf_program *prog, >> + const struct bpf_tcx_opts *opts) >> +{ >> + LIBBPF_OPTS(bpf_link_create_opts, link_create_opts); >> + __u32 relative_id, flags; >> + int ifindex, relative_fd; >> + >> + if (!OPTS_VALID(opts, bpf_tcx_opts)) >> + return libbpf_err_ptr(-EINVAL); >> + >> + relative_id = OPTS_GET(opts, relative_id, 0); >> + relative_fd = OPTS_GET(opts, relative_fd, 0); >> + flags = OPTS_GET(opts, flags, 0); >> + ifindex = OPTS_GET(opts, ifindex, 0); >> + >> + /* validate we don't have unexpected combinations of non-zero fields */ >> + if (!ifindex) { >> + pr_warn("prog '%s': target netdevice ifindex cannot be zero\n", >> + prog->name); >> + return libbpf_err_ptr(-EINVAL); >> + } > > given ifindex is non-optional, then it makes more sense to have it as > a mandatory argument between prog and opts in > bpf_program__attach_tcx(), instead of as a field of an opts struct Agree, and it will also be more in line with bpf_program__attach_xdp() one which has ifindex as 2nd param too. I also implemented the rest of the suggestions in here for v5, thanks! >> + if (relative_fd > 0 && relative_id) { > > this asymmetrical check is a bit distracting. And also, if someone > specifies negative FD and positive ID, that's also a bad combo and we > shouldn't just ignore invalid FD, right? So I'd have a nice and clean > > if (relative_fd && relative_id) { /* bad */ } > >> + pr_warn("prog '%s': relative_fd and relative_id cannot be set at the same time\n", >> + prog->name); >> + return libbpf_err_ptr(-EINVAL); >> + } >> + if (relative_id) >> + flags |= BPF_F_ID; > > I think bpf_link_create() will add this flag anyways, so can drop this > adjustment logic here? > >> + >> + link_create_opts.tcx.expected_revision = OPTS_GET(opts, expected_revision, 0); >> + link_create_opts.tcx.relative_fd = relative_fd; >> + link_create_opts.tcx.relative_id = relative_id; >> + link_create_opts.flags = flags; >> + >> + /* target_fd/target_ifindex use the same field in LINK_CREATE */ >> + return bpf_program_attach_fd(prog, ifindex, "tc", &link_create_opts); > > s/tc/tcx/ ? > >> } >> >> struct bpf_link *bpf_program__attach_freplace(const struct bpf_program *prog, >> @@ -11917,11 +11956,16 @@ struct bpf_link *bpf_program__attach_freplace(const struct bpf_program *prog, >> } >> >> if (target_fd) { >> + LIBBPF_OPTS(bpf_link_create_opts, target_opts); >> + >> btf_id = libbpf_find_prog_btf_id(attach_func_name, target_fd); >> if (btf_id < 0) >> return libbpf_err_ptr(btf_id); >> >> - return bpf_program__attach_fd(prog, target_fd, btf_id, "freplace"); >> + target_opts.target_btf_id = btf_id; >> + >> + return bpf_program_attach_fd(prog, target_fd, "freplace", >> + &target_opts); >> } else { >> /* no target, so use raw_tracepoint_open for compatibility >> * with old kernels >> diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.h b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.h >> index 10642ad69d76..33f60a318e81 100644 >> --- a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.h >> +++ b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.h >> @@ -733,6 +733,22 @@ LIBBPF_API struct bpf_link * >> bpf_program__attach_netfilter(const struct bpf_program *prog, >> const struct bpf_netfilter_opts *opts); >> >> +struct bpf_tcx_opts { >> + /* size of this struct, for forward/backward compatibility */ >> + size_t sz; >> + int ifindex; > > is ifindex optional or it's expected to always be specified? If the > latter, then I'd move ifindex out of opts and make it second arg of > bpf_program__attach_tcx, between prog and opts > >> + __u32 flags; >> + __u32 relative_fd; >> + __u32 relative_id; >> + __u64 expected_revision; >> + size_t :0; >> +}; >> +#define bpf_tcx_opts__last_field expected_revision >> + >> +LIBBPF_API struct bpf_link * >> +bpf_program__attach_tcx(const struct bpf_program *prog, >> + const struct bpf_tcx_opts *opts); >> + >> struct bpf_map; >> >> LIBBPF_API struct bpf_link *bpf_map__attach_struct_ops(const struct bpf_map *map); >> diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.map b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.map >> index a95d39bbef90..2a2db5c78048 100644 >> --- a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.map >> +++ b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.map >> @@ -397,4 +397,5 @@ LIBBPF_1.3.0 { >> bpf_obj_pin_opts; >> bpf_program__attach_netfilter; >> bpf_prog_detach_opts; >> + bpf_program__attach_tcx; > > heh, now we definitely screwed up sorting ;) > >> } LIBBPF_1.2.0; > >> -- >> 2.34.1 >> >
diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/bpf.c b/tools/lib/bpf/bpf.c index 3dfc43b477c3..d513c226b9aa 100644 --- a/tools/lib/bpf/bpf.c +++ b/tools/lib/bpf/bpf.c @@ -717,9 +717,9 @@ int bpf_link_create(int prog_fd, int target_fd, const struct bpf_link_create_opts *opts) { const size_t attr_sz = offsetofend(union bpf_attr, link_create); - __u32 target_btf_id, iter_info_len; + __u32 target_btf_id, iter_info_len, relative_id; + int fd, err, relative; union bpf_attr attr; - int fd, err; if (!OPTS_VALID(opts, bpf_link_create_opts)) return libbpf_err(-EINVAL); @@ -781,6 +781,21 @@ int bpf_link_create(int prog_fd, int target_fd, if (!OPTS_ZEROED(opts, netfilter)) return libbpf_err(-EINVAL); break; + case BPF_TCX_INGRESS: + case BPF_TCX_EGRESS: + relative = OPTS_GET(opts, tcx.relative_fd, 0); + relative_id = OPTS_GET(opts, tcx.relative_id, 0); + if (relative > 0 && relative_id) + return libbpf_err(-EINVAL); + if (relative_id) { + relative = relative_id; + attr.link_create.flags |= BPF_F_ID; + } + attr.link_create.tcx.relative_fd = relative; + attr.link_create.tcx.expected_revision = OPTS_GET(opts, tcx.expected_revision, 0); + if (!OPTS_ZEROED(opts, tcx)) + return libbpf_err(-EINVAL); + break; default: if (!OPTS_ZEROED(opts, flags)) return libbpf_err(-EINVAL); diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/bpf.h b/tools/lib/bpf/bpf.h index 49e9d88fd9cf..044a74ffc38a 100644 --- a/tools/lib/bpf/bpf.h +++ b/tools/lib/bpf/bpf.h @@ -401,6 +401,11 @@ struct bpf_link_create_opts { __s32 priority; __u32 flags; } netfilter; + struct { + __u32 relative_fd; + __u32 relative_id; + __u64 expected_revision; + } tcx; }; size_t :0; }; diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c index bd621c916783..aa94d4af0ecb 100644 --- a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c +++ b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c @@ -134,6 +134,7 @@ static const char * const link_type_name[] = { [BPF_LINK_TYPE_KPROBE_MULTI] = "kprobe_multi", [BPF_LINK_TYPE_STRUCT_OPS] = "struct_ops", [BPF_LINK_TYPE_NETFILTER] = "netfilter", + [BPF_LINK_TYPE_TCX] = "tcx", }; static const char * const map_type_name[] = { @@ -11845,11 +11846,10 @@ static int attach_lsm(const struct bpf_program *prog, long cookie, struct bpf_li } static struct bpf_link * -bpf_program__attach_fd(const struct bpf_program *prog, int target_fd, int btf_id, - const char *target_name) +bpf_program_attach_fd(const struct bpf_program *prog, + int target_fd, const char *target_name, + const struct bpf_link_create_opts *opts) { - DECLARE_LIBBPF_OPTS(bpf_link_create_opts, opts, - .target_btf_id = btf_id); enum bpf_attach_type attach_type; char errmsg[STRERR_BUFSIZE]; struct bpf_link *link; @@ -11867,7 +11867,7 @@ bpf_program__attach_fd(const struct bpf_program *prog, int target_fd, int btf_id link->detach = &bpf_link__detach_fd; attach_type = bpf_program__expected_attach_type(prog); - link_fd = bpf_link_create(prog_fd, target_fd, attach_type, &opts); + link_fd = bpf_link_create(prog_fd, target_fd, attach_type, opts); if (link_fd < 0) { link_fd = -errno; free(link); @@ -11883,19 +11883,58 @@ bpf_program__attach_fd(const struct bpf_program *prog, int target_fd, int btf_id struct bpf_link * bpf_program__attach_cgroup(const struct bpf_program *prog, int cgroup_fd) { - return bpf_program__attach_fd(prog, cgroup_fd, 0, "cgroup"); + return bpf_program_attach_fd(prog, cgroup_fd, "cgroup", NULL); } struct bpf_link * bpf_program__attach_netns(const struct bpf_program *prog, int netns_fd) { - return bpf_program__attach_fd(prog, netns_fd, 0, "netns"); + return bpf_program_attach_fd(prog, netns_fd, "netns", NULL); } struct bpf_link *bpf_program__attach_xdp(const struct bpf_program *prog, int ifindex) { /* target_fd/target_ifindex use the same field in LINK_CREATE */ - return bpf_program__attach_fd(prog, ifindex, 0, "xdp"); + return bpf_program_attach_fd(prog, ifindex, "xdp", NULL); +} + +struct bpf_link * +bpf_program__attach_tcx(const struct bpf_program *prog, + const struct bpf_tcx_opts *opts) +{ + LIBBPF_OPTS(bpf_link_create_opts, link_create_opts); + __u32 relative_id, flags; + int ifindex, relative_fd; + + if (!OPTS_VALID(opts, bpf_tcx_opts)) + return libbpf_err_ptr(-EINVAL); + + relative_id = OPTS_GET(opts, relative_id, 0); + relative_fd = OPTS_GET(opts, relative_fd, 0); + flags = OPTS_GET(opts, flags, 0); + ifindex = OPTS_GET(opts, ifindex, 0); + + /* validate we don't have unexpected combinations of non-zero fields */ + if (!ifindex) { + pr_warn("prog '%s': target netdevice ifindex cannot be zero\n", + prog->name); + return libbpf_err_ptr(-EINVAL); + } + if (relative_fd > 0 && relative_id) { + pr_warn("prog '%s': relative_fd and relative_id cannot be set at the same time\n", + prog->name); + return libbpf_err_ptr(-EINVAL); + } + if (relative_id) + flags |= BPF_F_ID; + + link_create_opts.tcx.expected_revision = OPTS_GET(opts, expected_revision, 0); + link_create_opts.tcx.relative_fd = relative_fd; + link_create_opts.tcx.relative_id = relative_id; + link_create_opts.flags = flags; + + /* target_fd/target_ifindex use the same field in LINK_CREATE */ + return bpf_program_attach_fd(prog, ifindex, "tc", &link_create_opts); } struct bpf_link *bpf_program__attach_freplace(const struct bpf_program *prog, @@ -11917,11 +11956,16 @@ struct bpf_link *bpf_program__attach_freplace(const struct bpf_program *prog, } if (target_fd) { + LIBBPF_OPTS(bpf_link_create_opts, target_opts); + btf_id = libbpf_find_prog_btf_id(attach_func_name, target_fd); if (btf_id < 0) return libbpf_err_ptr(btf_id); - return bpf_program__attach_fd(prog, target_fd, btf_id, "freplace"); + target_opts.target_btf_id = btf_id; + + return bpf_program_attach_fd(prog, target_fd, "freplace", + &target_opts); } else { /* no target, so use raw_tracepoint_open for compatibility * with old kernels diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.h b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.h index 10642ad69d76..33f60a318e81 100644 --- a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.h +++ b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.h @@ -733,6 +733,22 @@ LIBBPF_API struct bpf_link * bpf_program__attach_netfilter(const struct bpf_program *prog, const struct bpf_netfilter_opts *opts); +struct bpf_tcx_opts { + /* size of this struct, for forward/backward compatibility */ + size_t sz; + int ifindex; + __u32 flags; + __u32 relative_fd; + __u32 relative_id; + __u64 expected_revision; + size_t :0; +}; +#define bpf_tcx_opts__last_field expected_revision + +LIBBPF_API struct bpf_link * +bpf_program__attach_tcx(const struct bpf_program *prog, + const struct bpf_tcx_opts *opts); + struct bpf_map; LIBBPF_API struct bpf_link *bpf_map__attach_struct_ops(const struct bpf_map *map); diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.map b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.map index a95d39bbef90..2a2db5c78048 100644 --- a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.map +++ b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.map @@ -397,4 +397,5 @@ LIBBPF_1.3.0 { bpf_obj_pin_opts; bpf_program__attach_netfilter; bpf_prog_detach_opts; + bpf_program__attach_tcx; } LIBBPF_1.2.0;
Implement tcx BPF link support for libbpf. The bpf_program__attach_fd() API has been refactored slightly in order to pass bpf_link_create_opts pointer as input. A new bpf_program__attach_tcx() has been added on top of this which allows for passing all relevant data via extensible struct bpf_tcx_opts. The program sections tcx/ingress and tcx/egress correspond to the hook locations for tc ingress and egress, respectively. For concrete usage examples, see the extensive selftests that have been developed as part of this series. Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net> --- tools/lib/bpf/bpf.c | 19 ++++++++++-- tools/lib/bpf/bpf.h | 5 ++++ tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c | 62 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------ tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.h | 16 +++++++++++ tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.map | 1 + 5 files changed, 92 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)