From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (gate001.proxmox.com [45.144.208.40]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EB9C71FF0C0 for ; Wed, 04 Nov 2026 12:34:26 +0100 (CET) Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gate001.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 5EE922124C; Wed, 04 Nov 2026 12:34:24 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2026 12:34:01 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH proxmox-ebpf v5 0/5] add proxmox-ebpf library To: Hannes Laimer , =?UTF-8?Q?Fabian_Gr=C3=BCnbichler?= , pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com, Thomas Lamprecht References: <20261102150047.1584789-1-h.laimer@proxmox.com> <7826f3d1-4f90-411c-ba45-8bff7ef8a214@proxmox.com> <6a66dba5-d94f-4159-a761-9a66d17cd567@proxmox.com> <1793787660.v1i7061h5x.astroid@yuna.none> Content-Language: en-US From: Stefan Hanreich In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.331 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address DMARC_MISSING 0.1 Missing DMARC policy KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment (newer systems) RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED -2.3 Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/, medium trust SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record Message-ID-Hash: J5NRBIMXJSJOQ6XSYWY6DZE7SDWIRASU X-Message-ID-Hash: J5NRBIMXJSJOQ6XSYWY6DZE7SDWIRASU X-MailFrom: s.hanreich@proxmox.com X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; loop; banned-address; emergency; member-moderation; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.10 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: On 11/4/26 12:27 PM, Hannes Laimer wrote: > On 2026-11-04 11:30, Fabian Grünbichler wrote: >> On November 3, 2026 10:48 am, Hannes Laimer wrote: >>> On 2026-11-03 10:23, Thomas Lamprecht wrote: >>>> Am 03.11.26 um 09:58 schrieb Hannes Laimer: >>>>> On 2026-11-02 21:19, Thomas Lamprecht wrote: >>>>>> Am 02.11.26 um 16:09 schrieb Hannes Laimer: >>>>>>> The series applies on top of the scaffolding commit of the repo, which >>>>>>> is not on the list since it carries the vendored vmlinux.h at ~167k >>>>>>> lines. It is on my staff repo along with these five commits. >>>>>> >>>>>> So that's basically the reasoning to not put this inside the common >>>>>> proxmox workspace I guess? FWIW; the header is quite nicely tracked >>>>>> in git and as long as we do not have to highly frequently update it, >>>>>> putting this inside proxmox workspace might be a nicer trade-of >>>>>> compared to a dedicated repo. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> the reason was mostly because I had this as a binary(kind of like the >>>>> fw) in the beginning, I just didn't really consider moving it there >>>>> since. the only thing is that this is the first using clang in its >>>>> build.rs, so we'd need clang, libbpf-dev and linux-libc-dev as deps for >>>>> the workspace. don't think that should be a problem though >>>> >>>> Not for the workspace, each crate dir has its own packaging, i.e. those >>>> are all different source packages. But we indeed do not have any other >>>> "real" binary package, as in non-librust-source-code one. Can we host >>> >>> it is still no binary though, we still ship just the code, rust+C here, >>> and the build.rs does the compiling on the consumer. what is added is >>> just the dep to clang and the two libs. it wouldn't ship anything binary >> >> I guess there's a reason why we go with C here? Rust can compile to BPF >> as well after all (newer versions of the toolchain packages ship a >> prebuilt BPF target, and also support build-std now, but that is not yet >> in our builds IIRC). > > yes, basically that, but we'd also need aya-ebpf(+the bpf linker), > otherwise we would re-implement bpf_helpers.h in rust.. which i don't > think we want > >> >> I do think (if we stick with C/clang) that we should use a versioned >> clang (e.g., clang-21/clang-22) to avoid surprises. >> > > sure > >> FWIW, we already have other crates in our transitive dep tree in the >> proxmox workspace that use clang-sys or cc, like nettle-sys or >> openssl-sys, so I think either proxmox, proxmox-firewall or >> proxmox-ve-rs should be fine. >> > > proxmox-firewall is built mostly around the firewall binary, and this is > really scoped towards just PVEs SDN, proxmox-ve-rs is probably the best > fit here, since proxmox mostly contains non-product-specific code I was also thinking about ve-rs. In short/mid-term I'm not sure if we shouldn't just move all the firewall related parts from ve-rs to proxmox or proxmox-firewall completely. That'd leave us with the SDN specific stuff here and we could potentially turn that into a proxmox-sdn workspace? But I'm unsure if we want to add further crates there that deal with other, non-SDN stuff or where those would go then?