netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf-next 0/5] libbpf: error reporting changes for v1.0

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAEf4Bzb9qRhW0uwxzPpL15zgRk-YTghGw6OtgQMF0+59Xdv5xQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 24 May 2021 14:46:18 -0700
From:   Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>
To:     Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>
Cc:     John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
        Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
        Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...com>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Kernel Team <kernel-team@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 0/5] libbpf: error reporting changes for v1.0

On Mon, May 24, 2021 at 2:34 PM Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com> writes:
>
> > On Mon, May 24, 2021 at 1:53 PM Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com> writes:
> >>
> >> > On Sun, May 23, 2021 at 11:36 PM John Fastabend
> >> > <john.fastabend@...il.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> >> >> > Implement error reporting changes discussed in "Libbpf: the road to v1.0"
> >> >> > ([0]) document.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Libbpf gets a new API, libbpf_set_strict_mode() which accepts a set of flags
> >> >> > that turn on a set of libbpf 1.0 changes, that might be potentially breaking.
> >> >> > It's possible to opt-in into all current and future 1.0 features by specifying
> >> >> > LIBBPF_STRICT_ALL flag.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > When some of the 1.0 "features" are requested, libbpf APIs might behave
> >> >> > differently. In this patch set a first set of changes are implemented, all
> >> >> > related to the way libbpf returns errors. See individual patches for details.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Patch #1 adds a no-op libbpf_set_strict_mode() functionality to enable
> >> >> > updating selftests.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Patch #2 gets rid of all the bad code patterns that will break in libbpf 1.0
> >> >> > (exact -1 comparison for low-level APIs, direct IS_ERR() macro usage to check
> >> >> > pointer-returning APIs for error, etc). These changes make selftest work in
> >> >> > both legacy and 1.0 libbpf modes. Selftests also opt-in into 100% libbpf 1.0
> >> >> > mode to automatically gain all the subsequent changes, which will come in
> >> >> > follow up patches.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Patch #3 streamlines error reporting for low-level APIs wrapping bpf() syscall.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Patch #4 streamlines errors for all the rest APIs.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Patch #5 ensures that BPF skeletons propagate errors properly as well, as
> >> >> > currently on error some APIs will return NULL with no way of checking exact
> >> >> > error code.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >   [0] https://docs.google.com/document/d/1UyjTZuPFWiPFyKk1tV5an11_iaRuec6U-ZESZ54nNTY
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Andrii Nakryiko (5):
> >> >> >   libbpf: add libbpf_set_strict_mode() API to turn on libbpf 1.0
> >> >> >     behaviors
> >> >> >   selftests/bpf: turn on libbpf 1.0 mode and fix all IS_ERR checks
> >> >> >   libbpf: streamline error reporting for low-level APIs
> >> >> >   libbpf: streamline error reporting for high-level APIs
> >> >> >   bpftool: set errno on skeleton failures and propagate errors
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> LGTM for the series,
> >> >>
> >> >> Acked-by: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>
> >> >
> >> > Thanks, John!
> >> >
> >> > Toke, Stanislav, you cared about these aspects of libbpf 1.0 (by
> >> > commenting on the doc itself), do you mind also taking a brief look
> >> > and letting me know if this works for your use cases? Thanks!
> >>
> >> Changes LGTM:
> >>
> >> Acked-by: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>
> >>
> >> As a side note, the series seems to have been chopped up into individual
> >> emails with no threading; was a bit weird that I had to go hunting for
> >> the individual patches in my mailbox...
> >>
> >
> > That's my bad, I messed up and sent them individually and probably
> > that's why they weren't threaded properly.
>
> Right, OK, I'll stop looking for bugs on my end, then :)
>
> BTW, one more thing that just came to mind: since that gdoc is not
> likely to be around forever, would it be useful to make the reference in
> the commit message(s) point to something more stable? IDK what that
> shoul be, really. Maybe just pasting (an abbreviated outline of?) the
> text in the document into the cover letter / merge commit could work?

I was hoping Google won't deprecate Google Docs any time soon and I
had no intention to remove that document. But I was also thinking to
start wiki page at github.com/libbpf/libbpf with migration
instructions, so once that is up and running I can link that from
libbpf_set_strict_mode() doc comment. But I'd like to avoid blocking
on that.

>
> -Toke
>