[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87tv47bdsy.fsf@toke.dk>
Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2020 21:45:17 +0100
From: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>
To: Björn Töpel <bjorn.topel@...el.com>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>
Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
bpf@...r.kernel.org, Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@...com>,
Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>, Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>,
Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>,
David Miller <davem@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] bpf: Allow to resolve bpf trampoline in unwind
Björn Töpel <bjorn.topel@...el.com> writes:
> On 2020-02-03 20:58, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> [...]
>>>> ...and FWIW, it would be nice with bpf_dispatcher_<...> entries in kallsyms
>>>
>>> ok so it'd be 'bpf_dispatcher_<name>'
>>
>> hi,
>> so the only dispatcher is currently defined as:
>> DEFINE_BPF_DISPATCHER(bpf_dispatcher_xdp)
>>
>> with the bpf_dispatcher_<name> logic it shows in kallsyms as:
>> ffffffffa0450000 t bpf_dispatcher_bpf_dispatcher_xdp [bpf]
>>
>
> Ick! :-P
>
>
>> to fix that, would you guys preffer having:
>> DEFINE_BPF_DISPATCHER(xdp)
>>
>> or using the full dispatcher name as kallsyms name?
>> which would require some discipline for future dispatcher names ;-)
>>
>
> I'd prefer the latter, i.e. name "xdp" is shown as bpf_dispatcher_xdp in
> kallsyms.
>
> ...and if this route is taken, the macros can be changed, so that the
> trampoline functions are prefixed with "bpf_dispatcher_". Something like
> this (and also a small '_' cleanup):
+1; and thanks for fixing that _ as well - that was really bothering me :)
-Toke
Powered by blists - more mailing lists