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

[Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com>]

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? ;)

>          end_marker = re.compile('^};')
>          parser = BlockParser(self.reader)
>          parser.search_block(start_marker)
> ------
>
> I can submit this separately as a patch.
>
> Quentin