Added two apis for adding and removing given ebpf programs #76
Conversation
Atul-source
requested review from
sanfern,
satyaranjanp,
jniesz and
dthaler
as code owners
|
This PR is adding two granular apis
issue #57 |
|
It doesn’t make any sense to test all the functions in this PR because they are eventually calling other functions which are already tested. |
|
when api payload files merged in l3af-arch repository then docs link will work pull request : l3af-project/l3af-arch#41 |
| return fmt.Errorf("failed to chain XDP BPF programs: %w", err) | ||
| } | ||
| log.Info().Msgf("Push Back and Start XDP program : %s seq_id : %d", bpfProg.Name, bpfProg.SeqID) | ||
| if err := c.PushBackAndStartBPF(bpfProg, ifaceName, models.XDPIngressType); err != nil { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| if err := c.PushBackAndStartBPF(bpfProg, ifaceName, models.XDPIngressType); err != nil { | |
| if err := c.PushBackAndStartEbpfProgram(bpfProg, ifaceName, models.XDPIngressType); err != nil { |
it doesn't start ebpf per se, it starts an ebpf program, if I understand correctly, hence the suggested rename
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think this we can do it in a separate PR because we need to do lot of changes
Atul-source
changed the title
|
I only have one pending unresolved issue above on this and will approve when that is fixed. Please squash all the commits down to a single commit prior to merging, once everything is settled. |
|
|
||
| defer func(mesg *string, statusCode *int) { | ||
| w.WriteHeader(*statusCode) | ||
| _, err := w.Write([]byte(*mesg)) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If we cannot write, should we continue to limp along? I don't quite understand what would happen here after it logs the message?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
just return from function because defer functions will execute in the end of parent function
Signed-off-by: Atul-source <[email protected]>
| return nil | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| switch direction { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Since we want l3afd to be able to work with arbitrary prog types in the future, I think it will be necessary in the future, and "direction" will be a poor label at that point.
Signed-off-by: Atul-source <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Atul-source <[email protected]>
Fix name Co-authored-by: Dave Thaler <[email protected]>
fix name Co-authored-by: Dave Thaler <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Atul [email protected]