DPDK patches and discussions
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Ananyev, Konstantin" <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>
To: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>,
	Ray Kinsella <mdr@ashroe.eu>
Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] RFC - adding filter to packet capture API
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2019 13:41:30 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <BN7PR11MB25474284881E2709966BCF8E9A580@BN7PR11MB2547.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20191206141114.6b7d6d60@hermes.lan>


> In the process of updating packet capture to take a filter program, there
> is one open question about API/ABI.
> 
> The example is:
> 
> int
> rte_pdump_enable(uint16_t port, uint16_t queue, uint32_t flags,
> 		struct rte_ring *ring,
> 		struct rte_mempool *mp,
> 		void *filter);
> 
> For the new version want to add ability to pass a BPF (classic) program
> from libcap. This is described in most pcap API's as "struct bpf_program".
> 
> The filter parameter was left as a placeholder, but in typical YAGNI
> fashion. When we do need to use it, it is not going to work out.
> 
> Since the existing filter argument was never used, there are a bunch
> of options (in order from best to worse).
> 
> 1. Introduce new API which takes a filter.
> 
> int
> rte_pdump_enable_bpf(uint16_t port, uint16_t queue, uint32_t flags,
> 		struct rte_ring *ring,
> 		struct rte_mempool *mp,
> 		const struct bpf_program *filter);
> 
> The old API is just the same as calling new API with NULL as filter.
> This solution is safe but adds minor bloat.
> 
> 2. Use API versioning.  This solves the ABI problem but it is still
>    an API breakage since program that was passing junk would still
>    not compile.
> 
> 3. Change the function signature of existing API. This risks breaking
>    at compile time some program that was passing some other value.
>    Similarly, a program could have passed garbage, we never checked.
> 
> 4. Keep existing function signature, but be type unsafe.
>    This keeps API, but still is ABI breakage for programs that passed
>    garbage. Plus C is unsafe enough already.
> 

My preference is probably #4, with some extra changes:
make actual type for 'filter' be determined by flags,
something like:

enum {
        RTE_PDUMP_FLAG_RX = 1,  /* receive direction */
        RTE_PDUMP_FLAG_TX = 2,  /* transmit direction */
+      RTE_PDUMP_FLAG_CBPF = 4, /* filter points to struct bpf_program */
        /* both receive and transmit directions */
        RTE_PDUMP_FLAG_RXTX = (RTE_PDUMP_FLAG_RX|RTE_PDUMP_FLAG_TX)
};




  parent reply	other threads:[~2019-12-09 13:41 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-12-06 22:11 Stephen Hemminger
2019-12-09 10:24 ` Ray Kinsella
2019-12-09 13:41 ` Ananyev, Konstantin [this message]
2019-12-09 16:49   ` Stephen Hemminger
2019-12-11 20:13   ` Morten Brørup

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=BN7PR11MB25474284881E2709966BCF8E9A580@BN7PR11MB2547.namprd11.prod.outlook.com \
    --to=konstantin.ananyev@intel.com \
    --cc=dev@dpdk.org \
    --cc=mdr@ashroe.eu \
    --cc=stephen@networkplumber.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).