[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2f670f3f-4d91-9b74-4fbe-8ea1351444cb@isovalent.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2022 11:46:29 +0100
From: Quentin Monnet <quentin@...valent.com>
To: Wang Yufen <wangyufen@...wei.com>, ast@...nel.org,
daniel@...earbox.net, andrii@...nel.org, martin.lau@...ux.dev,
song@...nel.org, yhs@...com, john.fastabend@...il.com,
kpsingh@...nel.org, sdf@...gle.com, haoluo@...gle.com,
jolsa@...nel.org, davem@...emloft.net, kuba@...nel.org,
hawk@...nel.org, nathan@...nel.org, ndesaulniers@...gle.com,
trix@...hat.com
Cc: bpf@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, llvm@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [bpf-next v6 1/3] bpftool: Add auto_attach for bpf prog
load|loadall
Sat Sep 24 2022 11:13:48 GMT+0100 (British Summer Time) ~ Wang Yufen
<wangyufen@...wei.com>
> Add auto_attach optional to support one-step load-attach-pin_link.
>
> For example,
> $ bpftool prog loadall test.o /sys/fs/bpf/test autoattach
>
> $ bpftool link
> 26: tracing name test1 tag f0da7d0058c00236 gpl
> loaded_at 2022-09-09T21:39:49+0800 uid 0
> xlated 88B jited 55B memlock 4096B map_ids 3
> btf_id 55
> 28: kprobe name test3 tag 002ef1bef0723833 gpl
> loaded_at 2022-09-09T21:39:49+0800 uid 0
> xlated 88B jited 56B memlock 4096B map_ids 3
> btf_id 55
> 57: tracepoint name oncpu tag 7aa55dfbdcb78941 gpl
> loaded_at 2022-09-09T21:41:32+0800 uid 0
> xlated 456B jited 265B memlock 4096B map_ids 17,13,14,15
> btf_id 82
>
> $ bpftool link
> 1: tracing prog 26
> prog_type tracing attach_type trace_fentry
> 3: perf_event prog 28
> 10: perf_event prog 57
>
> The autoattach optional can support tracepoints, k(ret)probes,
> u(ret)probes.
>
> Signed-off-by: Wei Yongjun <weiyongjun1@...wei.com>
> Signed-off-by: Wang Yufen <wangyufen@...wei.com>
> ---
> v5 -> v6: skip the programs not supporting auto-attach,
> and change optional name from "auto_attach" to "autoattach"
> v4 -> v5: some formatting nits of doc
> v3 -> v4: rename functions, update doc, bash and do_help()
> v2 -> v3: switch to extend prog load command instead of extend perf
> v2: https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/patch/20220824033837.458197-1-weiyongjun1@huawei.com/
> v1: https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/patch/20220816151725.153343-1-weiyongjun1@huawei.com/
> tools/bpf/bpftool/prog.c | 76 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> 1 file changed, 74 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/tools/bpf/bpftool/prog.c b/tools/bpf/bpftool/prog.c
> index c81362a001ba..b1cbd06dee19 100644
> --- a/tools/bpf/bpftool/prog.c
> +++ b/tools/bpf/bpftool/prog.c
> @@ -1453,6 +1453,67 @@ get_prog_type_by_name(const char *name, enum bpf_prog_type *prog_type,
> return ret;
> }
>
> +static int
> +auto_attach_program(struct bpf_program *prog, const char *path)
> +{
> + struct bpf_link *link;
> + int err;
> +
> + link = bpf_program__attach(prog);
> + if (!link)
> + return -1;
> +
> + err = bpf_link__pin(link, path);
> + if (err) {
> + bpf_link__destroy(link);
> + return err;
> + }
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static int pathname_concat(const char *path, const char *name, char *buf)
> +{
> + int len;
> +
> + len = snprintf(buf, PATH_MAX, "%s/%s", path, name);
> + if (len < 0)
> + return -EINVAL;
> + if (len >= PATH_MAX)
> + return -ENAMETOOLONG;
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static int
> +auto_attach_programs(struct bpf_object *obj, const char *path)
> +{
> + struct bpf_program *prog;
> + char buf[PATH_MAX];
> + int err;
> +
> + bpf_object__for_each_program(prog, obj) {
> + err = pathname_concat(path, bpf_program__name(prog), buf);
> + if (err)
> + goto err_unpin_programs;
> +
> + err = auto_attach_program(prog, buf);
> + if (err && errno != EOPNOTSUPP)
> + goto err_unpin_programs;
If I read the above correctly, we skip entirely programs that couldn't
be auto-attached. I'm not sure what Andrii had in mind exactly, but it
would make sense to me to fallback to regular program pinning if the
program couldn't be attached/linked, so we still keep it loaded in the
kernel after bpftool exits. Probably with a p_info() message to let
users know?
> + }
> +
> + return 0;
> +
> +err_unpin_programs:
> + while ((prog = bpf_object__prev_program(obj, prog))) {
> + if (pathname_concat(path, bpf_program__name(prog), buf))
> + continue;
> +
> + bpf_program__unpin(prog, buf);
> + }
> +
> + return err;
> +}
Powered by blists - more mailing lists