act_bpf: allow non-default TC_ACT opcodes as BPF exec outcome
Revisiting commit d23b8ad8 ("tc: add BPF based action") with regards to eBPF support, I was thinking that it might be better to improve return semantics from a BPF program invoked through BPF_PROG_RUN(). Currently, in case filter_res is 0, we overwrite the default action opcode with TC_ACT_SHOT. A default action opcode configured through tc's m_bpf can be: TC_ACT_RECLASSIFY, TC_ACT_PIPE, TC_ACT_SHOT, TC_ACT_UNSPEC, TC_ACT_OK. In cls_bpf, we have the possibility to overwrite the default class associated with the classifier in case filter_res is _not_ 0xffffffff (-1). That allows us to fold multiple [e]BPF programs into a single one, where they would otherwise need to be defined as a separate classifier with its own classid, needlessly redoing parsing work, etc. Similarly, we could do better in act_bpf: Since above TC_ACT* opcodes are exported to UAPI anyway, we reuse them for return-code-to-tc-opcode mapping, where we would allow above possibilities. Thus, like in cls_bpf, a filter_res of 0xffffffff (-1) means that the configured _default_ action is used. Any unkown return code from the BPF program would fail in tcf_bpf() with TC_ACT_UNSPEC. Should we one day want to make use of TC_ACT_STOLEN or TC_ACT_QUEUED, which both have the same semantics, we have the option to either use that as a default action (filter_res of 0xffffffff) or non-default BPF return code. All that will allow us to transparently use tcf_bpf() for both BPF flavours. Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net> Cc: Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us> Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@plumgrid.com> Cc: Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@mojatatu.com> Acked-by: Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us> Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Showing
Please register or sign in to comment