On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 06:21:44PM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > > > Duplicating the same features in bpftool will only diminish the > > > incentive for moving iproute2 to libbpf. > > > > not at all. why do you think so? > > Because iproute2's BPF has fallen behind so the simplest thing is to > just contribute to bpftool. But iproute2 is the tool set for Linux > networking, we can't let it bit rot :(
where were you when a lot of libbpf was copy pasted into iproute2 ?! Now it diverged a lot and it's difficult to move iproute2 back to the main train which is libbpf. Same thing with at least 5 copy-pastes of samples/bpf/bpf_load.c that spawned a bunch of different bpf loaders. > IMHO vaguely competent users of Linux networking will know ip link. > If they are not vaguely competent, they should not attach XDP programs > to interfaces by hand... I'm a prime example of moderately competent linux user who doesn't know iproute2. I'm not joking. I don't know tc syntax and always use my cheat sheet of ip/tc commands to do anything. > > > > bpftool must be able to introspect every aspect of bpf programming. > > That includes detaching and attaching anywhere. > > Anyone doing 'bpftool p s' should be able to switch off particular > > prog id without learning ten different other tools. > > I think the fact that we already have an implementation in iproute2, > which is at the risk of bit rot is more important to me that the > hypothetical scenario where everyone knows to just use bpftool (for > XDP, for TC it's still iproute2 unless there's someone crazy enough > to reimplement the TC functionality :)) I think you're missing the point that iproute2 is still necessary to configure it. bpftool should be able to attach/detach from anything. But configuring that thing (whether it's cgroup or tc/xdp) is a job of corresponding apis and tools. > I'm not sure we can settle our differences over email :) > I have tremendous respect for all the maintainers I CCed here, > if nobody steps up to agree with me I'll concede the bpftool net > battle entirely :) we can keep arguing forever. Respect to ease-of-use only comes from the pain of operational experience. I don't think I can convey that pain in the email either.
