netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 0/5] libbpf: rename btf__get_from_id() and btf_

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: <82e61e60-e2e9-f42d-8e49-bbe416b7513d@isovalent.com>
Date:   Fri, 23 Jul 2021 10:58:08 +0100
From:   Quentin Monnet <quentin@...valent.com>
To:     Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>
Cc:     Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
        Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 0/5] libbpf: rename btf__get_from_id() and
 btf__load() APIs, support split BTF

2021-07-22 19:45 UTC-0700 ~ Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>
> On Thu, Jul 22, 2021 at 5:58 PM Andrii Nakryiko
> <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 21, 2021 at 8:38 AM Quentin Monnet <quentin@...valent.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> As part of the effort to move towards a v1.0 for libbpf [0], this set
>>> improves some confusing function names related to BTF loading from and to
>>> the kernel:
>>>
>>> - btf__load() becomes btf__load_into_kernel().
>>> - btf__get_from_id becomes btf__load_from_kernel_by_id().
>>> - A new version btf__load_from_kernel_by_id_split() extends the former to
>>>   add support for split BTF.
>>>
>>> The old functions are not removed or marked as deprecated yet, there
>>> should be in a future libbpf version.
>>
>> Oh, and I was thinking about this whole deprecation having to be done
>> in two steps. It's super annoying to keep track of that. Ideally, we'd
>> have some macro that can mark API deprecated "in the future", when
>> actual libbpf version is >= to defined version. So something like
>> this:
>>
>> LIBBPF_DEPRECATED_AFTER(V(0,5), "API that will be marked deprecated in v0.6")
> 
> Better:
> 
> LIBBPF_DEPRECATED_SINCE(0, 6, "API that will be marked deprecated in v0.6")

I was considering a very advanced feature called “opening a new GitHub
issue” to track this :). But the macro game sounds interesting, I'll
look into it for next version.

One nit with LIBBPF_DEPRECATED_SINCE() is that the warning mentions a
version (here v0.6) that we are unsure will exist (say we jump from v0.5
to v1.0). But I don't suppose that's a real issue.

Thanks for the feedback!
Quentin