act_bpf: allow non-default TC_ACT opcodes as BPF exec outcome

act_bpf: allow non-default TC_ACT opcodes as BPF exec outcome

Revisiting commit d23b8ad8ab23 ("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>