On 03/22, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 06:19:57PM -0700, Stanislav Fomichev wrote: > > Are we ok with breaking api in this case? I'm all in on removing this > > extra information. We can always put it back if somebody complains (and > > manually parse in eth_get_headlen case). > > Fine. That seems to be the only way forward to clean it all up. > Could you submit patch 1 to bpf tree disallowing vlan fields? > Patch 3 looks like candidate as well? SGTM, will do. Let me also spend some time and do a simple test for the vlan case, to make sure I didn't miss something important. One question here though: would I need to wait for bpf and bpf-next to re-merge to continues the series? Or we can cherry-pick those patches to bpf-next as well (and git will work it out during the merge)?
> > We can still have protocol, because in both skb/skb-less cases we have > > it. > > proto can work in both cases, but is it needed ? Does program benefit from it? > The kernel side burns extra bytes by copying it and extra branches to handle > it. > May be drop it as well? I feel like the program benefits from it, there is no need to go back and re-parse that (and in the skb case, this data is already pulled). I was also thinking about re-purposing flow_keys->n_proto for that (instead of skb->protocol), so it functions as input and output, maybe that's a more clear way to do it.
