From: "Eelco Chaudron" <echaudro@redhat.com>
To: "Andrii Nakryiko" <andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com>
Cc: "Jakub Sitnicki" <jakub@cloudflare.com>,
bpf <bpf@vger.kernel.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
Networking <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
"Alexei Starovoitov" <ast@kernel.org>,
"Daniel Borkmann" <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
"Martin Lau" <kafai@fb.com>, "Song Liu" <songliubraving@fb.com>,
"Yonghong Song" <yhs@fb.com>, "Andrii Nakryiko" <andriin@fb.com>,
"Toke Høiland-Jørgensen" <toke@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v4 2/3] libbpf: Add support for dynamic program attach target
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2020 12:06:29 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <94BE5B07-CFC8-426F-B993-28D01E46BAE5@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAEf4BzZ_H7_HVL0uDkxP2hvW7FC=9r_V4X2VzgB+uZMZcxP7aQ@mail.gmail.com>
On 18 Feb 2020, at 22:24, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 8:34 AM Jakub Sitnicki <jakub@cloudflare.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> Hey Eelco,
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 12:43 PM GMT, Eelco Chaudron wrote:
>>> Currently when you want to attach a trace program to a bpf program
>>> the section name needs to match the tracepoint/function semantics.
>>>
>>> However the addition of the bpf_program__set_attach_target() API
>>> allows you to specify the tracepoint/function dynamically.
>>>
>>> The call flow would look something like this:
>>>
>>> xdp_fd = bpf_prog_get_fd_by_id(id);
>>> trace_obj = bpf_object__open_file("func.o", NULL);
>>> prog = bpf_object__find_program_by_title(trace_obj,
>>> "fentry/myfunc");
>>> bpf_program__set_expected_attach_type(prog, BPF_TRACE_FENTRY);
>>> bpf_program__set_attach_target(prog, xdp_fd,
>>> "xdpfilt_blk_all");
>>> bpf_object__load(trace_obj)
>>>
>>> Acked-by: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@redhat.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Eelco Chaudron <echaudro@redhat.com>
>>> ---
>>> tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c | 34 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
>>> tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.h | 4 ++++
>>> tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.map | 2 ++
>>> 3 files changed, 36 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c
>>> index 514b1a524abb..0c25d78fb5d8 100644
>>> --- a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c
>>> +++ b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> @@ -8132,6 +8133,31 @@ void bpf_program__bpil_offs_to_addr(struct
>>> bpf_prog_info_linear *info_linear)
>>> }
>>> }
>>>
>>> +int bpf_program__set_attach_target(struct bpf_program *prog,
>>> + int attach_prog_fd,
>>> + const char *attach_func_name)
>>> +{
>>> + int btf_id;
>>> +
>>> + if (!prog || attach_prog_fd < 0 || !attach_func_name)
>>> + return -EINVAL;
>>> +
>>> + if (attach_prog_fd)
>>> + btf_id = libbpf_find_prog_btf_id(attach_func_name,
>>> + attach_prog_fd);
>>> + else
>>> + btf_id = __find_vmlinux_btf_id(prog->obj->btf_vmlinux,
>>> + attach_func_name,
>>> +
>>> prog->expected_attach_type);
>>> +
>>> + if (btf_id <= 0)
>>> + return btf_id;
>>
>> Looks like we can get 0 as return value on both error and success
>> (below)? Is that intentional?
>
> Neither libbpf_find_prog_btf_id nor __find_vmlinux_btf_id are going to
> return 0 on failure. But I do agree that if (btf_id < 0) check would
> be better here.
Is see in theory btf__find_by_name_kind() could return 0:
if (kind == BTF_KIND_UNKN || !strcmp(type_name, "void"))
return 0;
But for our case, this will not happen and is invalid, so what about
just to make sure its future proof?:
if (btf_id <= 0)
return btf_id ? btf_id : -ENOENT;
> With that minor nit:
>
> Acked-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@fb.com>
>
>>
>>> +
>>> + prog->attach_btf_id = btf_id;
>>> + prog->attach_prog_fd = attach_prog_fd;
>>> + return 0;
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> int parse_cpu_mask_str(const char *s, bool **mask, int *mask_sz)
>>> {
>>> int err = 0, n, len, start, end = -1;
>>
>> [...]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-02-19 11:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-02-17 12:42 [PATCH bpf-next v4 0/3] libbpf: Add support for dynamic program attach target Eelco Chaudron
2020-02-17 12:43 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 1/3] libbpf: Bump libpf current version to v0.0.8 Eelco Chaudron
2020-02-17 12:43 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 2/3] libbpf: Add support for dynamic program attach target Eelco Chaudron
2020-02-18 16:34 ` Jakub Sitnicki
2020-02-18 21:24 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2020-02-19 11:06 ` Eelco Chaudron [this message]
2020-02-19 17:41 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2020-02-20 13:21 ` Eelco Chaudron
2020-02-17 12:43 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 3/3] selftests/bpf: update xdp_bpf2bpf test to use new set_attach_target API Eelco Chaudron
2020-02-18 21:21 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2020-02-19 10:54 ` Eelco Chaudron
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=94BE5B07-CFC8-426F-B993-28D01E46BAE5@redhat.com \
--to=echaudro@redhat.com \
--cc=andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com \
--cc=andriin@fb.com \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=jakub@cloudflare.com \
--cc=kafai@fb.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=songliubraving@fb.com \
--cc=toke@redhat.com \
--cc=yhs@fb.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).