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)
};
next prev 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).