Re: [PATCH bpf-next v8 04/11] bpf: move prog->aux->linked_prog and trampoline into bpf_link on attach

["Toke Høiland-Jørgensen" <toke@redhat.com>]

Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com> writes:

> On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 3:00 PM Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>> Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>> >> +    struct mutex tgt_mutex; /* protects tgt_* pointers below, *after* prog becomes visible */
>> >> +    struct bpf_prog *tgt_prog;
>> >> +    struct bpf_trampoline *tgt_trampoline;
>> >>      bool verifier_zext; /* Zero extensions has been inserted by verifier. */
>> >>      bool offload_requested;
>> >>      bool attach_btf_trace; /* true if attaching to BTF-enabled raw tp */
>> > ...
>> >>  struct bpf_tracing_link {
>> >>      struct bpf_link link;
>> >>      enum bpf_attach_type attach_type;
>> >> +    struct bpf_trampoline *trampoline;
>> >> +    struct bpf_prog *tgt_prog;
>> >
>> > imo it's confusing to have 'tgt_prog' to mean two different things.
>> > In prog->aux->tgt_prog it means target prog to attach to in the future.
>> > Whereas here it means the existing prog that was used to attached to.
>> > They kinda both 'target progs' but would be good to disambiguate.
>> > May be keep it as 'tgt_prog' here and
>> > rename to 'dest_prog' and 'dest_trampoline' in prog->aux ?
>>
>> I started changing this as you suggested, but I think it actually makes
>> the code weirder. We'll end up with a lot of 'tgt_prog =
>> prog->aux->dest_prog' assignments in the verifier, unless we also rename
>> all of the local variables, which I think is just code churn for very
>> little gain (the existing 'target' meaning is quite clear, I think).
>
> you mean "churn" just for this patch. that's fine.
> But it will make names more accurate for everyone reading it afterwards.
> Hence I prefer distinct and specific names where possible.
>
>> I also think it's quite natural that the target moves; I mean, it's
>> literally the same pointer being re-assigned from prog->aux to the link.
>> We could rename the link member to 'attached_tgt_prog' or something like
>> that, but I'm not sure it helps (and I don't see much of a problem in
>> the first place).
>
> 'attached_tgt_prog' will not be the correct name.
> There is 'prog' inside the link already. That's 'attached' prog.
> Not this one. This one is the 'attached_to' prog.
> But such name would be too long.
> imo calling it 'dest_prog' in aux is shorter and more obvious.

Meh, don't really see how it helps ('destination' and 'target' are
literally synonyms). But I don't care enough to bikeshed about it
either, so I'll just do a search/replace...

-Toke