All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
To: bpf@vger.kernel.org, ast@kernel.org
Cc: andrii@kernel.org, daniel@iogearbox.net, martin.lau@linux.dev,
	kernel-team@fb.com, yonghong.song@linux.dev, void@manifault.com,
	sinquersw@gmail.com, Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
Subject: [PATCH bpf-next v2 03/15] libbpf: honor autocreate flag for struct_ops maps
Date: Sat,  2 Mar 2024 03:19:08 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20240302011920.15302-4-eddyz87@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240302011920.15302-1-eddyz87@gmail.com>

Skip load steps for struct_ops maps not marked for automatic creation.
This should allow to load bpf object in situations like below:

    SEC("struct_ops/foo") int BPF_PROG(foo) { ... }
    SEC("struct_ops/bar") int BPF_PROG(bar) { ... }

    struct test_ops___v1 {
    	int (*foo)(void);
    };

    struct test_ops___v2 {
    	int (*foo)(void);
    	int (*does_not_exist)(void);
    };

    SEC(".struct_ops.link")
    struct test_ops___v1 map_for_old = {
    	.test_1 = (void *)foo
    };

    SEC(".struct_ops.link")
    struct test_ops___v2 map_for_new = {
    	.test_1 = (void *)foo,
    	.does_not_exist = (void *)bar
    };

Suppose program is loaded on old kernel that does not have definition
for 'does_not_exist' struct_ops member. After this commit it would be
possible to load such object file after the following tweaks:

    bpf_program__set_autoload(skel->progs.bar, false);
    bpf_map__set_autocreate(skel->maps.map_for_new, false);

Acked-by: David Vernet <void@manifault.com>
Signed-off-by: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
---
 tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c | 4 ++--
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c
index 2c0cb72bc7a4..25c452c20d7d 100644
--- a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c
+++ b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c
@@ -1209,7 +1209,7 @@ static int bpf_object__init_kern_struct_ops_maps(struct bpf_object *obj)
 	for (i = 0; i < obj->nr_maps; i++) {
 		map = &obj->maps[i];
 
-		if (!bpf_map__is_struct_ops(map))
+		if (!bpf_map__is_struct_ops(map) || !map->autocreate)
 			continue;
 
 		err = bpf_map__init_kern_struct_ops(map);
@@ -8136,7 +8136,7 @@ static int bpf_object_prepare_struct_ops(struct bpf_object *obj)
 	int i;
 
 	for (i = 0; i < obj->nr_maps; i++)
-		if (bpf_map__is_struct_ops(&obj->maps[i]))
+		if (bpf_map__is_struct_ops(&obj->maps[i]) && obj->maps[i].autocreate)
 			bpf_map_prepare_vdata(&obj->maps[i]);
 
 	return 0;
-- 
2.43.0


  parent reply	other threads:[~2024-03-02  1:19 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2024-03-02  1:19 [PATCH bpf-next v2 00/15] libbpf: type suffixes and autocreate flag for struct_ops maps Eduard Zingerman
2024-03-02  1:19 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 01/15] libbpf: allow version suffixes (___smth) for struct_ops types Eduard Zingerman
2024-03-02  1:19 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 02/15] libbpf: tie struct_ops programs to kernel BTF ids, not to local ids Eduard Zingerman
2024-03-02  1:19 ` Eduard Zingerman [this message]
2024-03-02  1:19 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 04/15] selftests/bpf: test struct_ops map definition with type suffix Eduard Zingerman
2024-03-02  1:19 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 05/15] selftests/bpf: utility functions to capture libbpf log in test_progs Eduard Zingerman
2024-03-02  1:19 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 06/15] selftests/bpf: bad_struct_ops test Eduard Zingerman
2024-03-02  1:19 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 07/15] selftests/bpf: test autocreate behavior for struct_ops maps Eduard Zingerman
2024-03-02  1:19 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 08/15] libbpf: sync progs autoload with maps autocreate " Eduard Zingerman
2024-03-04 19:13   ` Eduard Zingerman
2024-03-02  1:19 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 09/15] selftests/bpf: verify struct_ops autoload/autocreate sync Eduard Zingerman
2024-03-02  1:19 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 10/15] libbpf: replace elf_state->st_ops_* fields with SEC_ST_OPS sec_type Eduard Zingerman
2024-03-02  1:19 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 11/15] libbpf: struct_ops in SEC("?.struct_ops") and SEC("?.struct_ops.link") Eduard Zingerman
2024-03-02  1:19 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 12/15] libbpf: rewrite btf datasec names starting from '?' Eduard Zingerman
2024-03-02  1:19 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 13/15] selftests/bpf: test case for SEC("?.struct_ops") Eduard Zingerman
2024-03-02  1:19 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 14/15] bpf: allow '?' at the beginning of DATASEC names Eduard Zingerman
2024-03-02  1:19 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 15/15] selftests/bpf: test cases for '?' in BTF names Eduard Zingerman

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20240302011920.15302-4-eddyz87@gmail.com \
    --to=eddyz87@gmail.com \
    --cc=andrii@kernel.org \
    --cc=ast@kernel.org \
    --cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
    --cc=kernel-team@fb.com \
    --cc=martin.lau@linux.dev \
    --cc=sinquersw@gmail.com \
    --cc=void@manifault.com \
    --cc=yonghong.song@linux.dev \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.