From: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com>
To: Florent Revest <revest@chromium.org>
Cc: bpf <bpf@vger.kernel.org>, Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>,
KP Singh <kpsingh@kernel.org>,
Brendan Jackman <jackmanb@google.com>,
open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next] libbpf: Add ability to clear per-program load flags
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2021 09:49:39 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAEf4BzY5JXvWSTdyyPRoTdqupsnxiRf622sGTzsOPhr4WVMNBA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20211118103335.1208372-1-revest@chromium.org>
On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 2:33 AM Florent Revest <revest@chromium.org> wrote:
>
> Recently, bpf_program__flags and bpf_program__set_extra_flags were
> introduced to the libbpf API but they only allow adding load flags.
>
> We have a use-case where we construct a skeleton with a sleepable
> program and if it fails to load then we want to make it non-sleepable by
> clearing BPF_F_SLEEPABLE.
I'd say the better way to do this is to have two programs (that share
the logic, of course) and pick one or another at runtime:
static int whatever_logic(bool sleepable) { ... }
SEC("fentry.s/whatever")
int BPF_PROG(whatever_sleepable, ...)
{
return whatever_logic(true);
}
SEC("fentry/whatever")
int BPF_PROG(whatever_nonsleepable, ...)
{
return whatever_logic(false);
}
Then at runtime you can bpf_program__autoload(..., false) for a
variant you don't want to load.
This clear_flags business seems too low-level and too limited. Next
thing we'll be adding a few more bit manipulation variants (e.g, reset
flags). Let's see how far you can get with the use of existing
features. I'd set_extra_flags() to be almost never used, btw. And they
shouldn't, if can be avoided. So I'm hesitant to keep extending
operations around prog_flags.
But given we just added set_extra_flags() and it's already too
limiting, let's change set_extra flags to just set_flags() that will
override the flags with whatever user provides. Then with
bpf_program__flags() and bpf_program__set_flags() you can express
whatever you want without adding extra APIs. Care to fix that?
>
> Signed-off-by: Florent Revest <revest@chromium.org>
> ---
> tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c | 9 +++++++++
> tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.h | 1 +
> tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.map | 1 +
> 3 files changed, 11 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c
> index de7e09a6b5ec..dcb7fced5fd2 100644
> --- a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c
> +++ b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c
> @@ -8305,6 +8305,15 @@ int bpf_program__set_extra_flags(struct bpf_program *prog, __u32 extra_flags)
> return 0;
> }
>
> +int bpf_program__clear_flags(struct bpf_program *prog, __u32 flags)
> +{
> + if (prog->obj->loaded)
> + return libbpf_err(-EBUSY);
> +
> + prog->prog_flags &= ~flags;
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> #define SEC_DEF(sec_pfx, ptype, atype, flags, ...) { \
> .sec = sec_pfx, \
> .prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_##ptype, \
> diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.h b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.h
> index 4ec69f224342..08f108e49841 100644
> --- a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.h
> +++ b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.h
> @@ -495,6 +495,7 @@ bpf_program__set_expected_attach_type(struct bpf_program *prog,
>
> LIBBPF_API __u32 bpf_program__flags(const struct bpf_program *prog);
> LIBBPF_API int bpf_program__set_extra_flags(struct bpf_program *prog, __u32 extra_flags);
> +LIBBPF_API int bpf_program__clear_flags(struct bpf_program *prog, __u32 flags);
>
> LIBBPF_API int
> bpf_program__set_attach_target(struct bpf_program *prog, int attach_prog_fd,
> diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.map b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.map
> index 6a59514a48cf..eeff700240dc 100644
> --- a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.map
> +++ b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.map
> @@ -401,6 +401,7 @@ LIBBPF_0.6.0 {
> bpf_program__insn_cnt;
> bpf_program__insns;
> bpf_program__set_extra_flags;
> + bpf_program__clear_flags;
> btf__add_btf;
> btf__add_decl_tag;
> btf__add_type_tag;
> --
> 2.34.0.rc2.393.gf8c9666880-goog
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-11-18 17:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-11-18 10:33 [PATCH bpf-next] libbpf: Add ability to clear per-program load flags Florent Revest
2021-11-18 17:49 ` Andrii Nakryiko [this message]
2021-11-18 20:29 ` Florent Revest
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=CAEf4BzY5JXvWSTdyyPRoTdqupsnxiRf622sGTzsOPhr4WVMNBA@mail.gmail.com \
--to=andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=jackmanb@google.com \
--cc=kpsingh@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=revest@chromium.org \
/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).