Re: [PATCH bpf-next 1/3] bpf/bpftool: add syscall prog type

[Quentin Monnet <quentin@isovalent.com>]

On Fri, 1 Apr 2022 at 19:40, Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Apr 1, 2022 at 9:04 AM Quentin Monnet <quentin@isovalent.com> wrote:
> >
> > 2022-03-31 11:45 UTC-0400 ~ Milan Landaverde <milan@mdaverde.com>
> > > In addition to displaying the program type in bpftool prog show
> > > this enables us to be able to query bpf_prog_type_syscall
> > > availability through feature probe as well as see
> > > which helpers are available in those programs (such as
> > > bpf_sys_bpf and bpf_sys_close)
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Milan Landaverde <milan@mdaverde.com>
> > > ---
> > >  tools/bpf/bpftool/prog.c | 1 +
> > >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/tools/bpf/bpftool/prog.c b/tools/bpf/bpftool/prog.c
> > > index bc4e05542c2b..8643b37d4e43 100644
> > > --- a/tools/bpf/bpftool/prog.c
> > > +++ b/tools/bpf/bpftool/prog.c
> > > @@ -68,6 +68,7 @@ const char * const prog_type_name[] = {
> > >       [BPF_PROG_TYPE_EXT]                     = "ext",
> > >       [BPF_PROG_TYPE_LSM]                     = "lsm",
> > >       [BPF_PROG_TYPE_SK_LOOKUP]               = "sk_lookup",
> > > +     [BPF_PROG_TYPE_SYSCALL]                 = "syscall",
> > >  };
> > >
> > >  const size_t prog_type_name_size = ARRAY_SIZE(prog_type_name);
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Quentin Monnet <quentin@isovalent.com>
> >
> > Thanks! This one should have been caught by CI :/. Instead it complains
> > when you add it. This is because BPF_PROG_TYPE_SYSCALL in the UAPI
> > header has a comment next to it, and the regex used in
> > tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_bpftool_synctypes.py to extract the
> > program types does not account for it. The fix should be:
> >
> > ------
> > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_bpftool_synctypes.py
> > b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_bpftool_synctypes.py
> > index 6bf21e47882a..cd239cbfd80c 100755
> > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_bpftool_synctypes.py
> > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_bpftool_synctypes.py
> > @@ -180,7 +180,7 @@ class FileExtractor(object):
> >          @enum_name: name of the enum to parse
> >          """
> >          start_marker = re.compile(f'enum {enum_name} {{\n')
> > -        pattern = re.compile('^\s*(BPF_\w+),?$')
> > +        pattern = re.compile('^\s*(BPF_\w+),?( /\* .* \*/)?$')
>
> small nit: do you need those spaces inside /* and */? why make
> unnecessary assumptions about proper formatting? ;)

No I don't need the spaces, I'll remove them indeed, thanks. I'll send
the patch next week.