[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <656b0d7e-6317-5446-b90f-79d97b78641d@netronome.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2018 18:41:29 +0000
From: Quentin Monnet <quentin.monnet@...ronome.com>
To: Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...ichev.me>
Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
oss-drivers@...ronome.com,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>,
Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [oss-drivers] Re: [PATCH bpf-next 0/8] tools: bpftool: add probes
for system and device
2018-12-14 10:21 UTC-0800 ~ Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...ichev.me>
> On 12/14, Quentin Monnet wrote:
>> 2018-12-13 12:19 UTC+0000 ~ Quentin Monnet <quentin.monnet@...ronome.com>
>>> Hi,
>>> This set add a new command to bpftool in order to dump a list of
>>> eBPF-related parameters for the system (or for a specific network
>>> device) to the console. Once again, this is based on a suggestion from
>>> Daniel.
>>>
>>> At this time, output includes:
>>>
>>
>> So as a reminder this one comes from an actual probe with the syscall...
>>
>>> - Availability of bpf() system call
>>
>> ... those 4 are read from procfs...
>>
>>> - Availability of bpf() system call for unprivileged users
>>> - JIT status (enabled or not, with or without debugging traces)
>>> - JIT hardening status
>>> - JIT kallsyms exports status
>>
>> ... these are read from /boot/config-$(uname -r)...
>>
>>> - Status of kernel compilation options related to BPF features
>>
>> ... this from uname()...
>>
>>> - Release number of the running kernel
>>
>> ... and the remaining ones are probed with minimal BPF programs.
>>
>>> - Availability of known eBPF program types
>>> - Availability of known eBPF map types
>>> - Availability of known eBPF helper functions
>>
>> As discussed with Stanislav and Daniel, some of the probing should
>> probably be moved to libbpf instead for the next version of this set. As
>> I see it, I could move probing to libbpf for:
>>
>> - BPF prog and map types
>> - BPF helper functions
>> - bpf() syscall availability
>>
>> I do not think kernel compile options, or kernel release number, should
>> go to libbpf, they're probably better in bpftool. I'm unsure about the
> +1
> Kernel + /proc stuff can probably live in bpftool.
>
>> procfs parameters, I'm considering leaving them in bpftool for now. Do
>> others have an opinion about this?
> Maybe start with adding prog/map/helpers probes to the libbpf
> (+ifindex)?
Agree with it, I'll work on a new version for next week. Thanks!
Powered by blists - more mailing lists