Re: [PATCH bpf-next v3 2/4] libbpf: Store map pin path and status in struct bpf_map

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

Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com> writes:

> On Sun, Oct 27, 2019 at 1:53 PM Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>> From: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@redhat.com>
>>
>> Support storing and setting a pin path in struct bpf_map, which can be used
>> for automatic pinning. Also store the pin status so we can avoid attempts
>> to re-pin a map that has already been pinned (or reused from a previous
>> pinning).
>>
>> Acked-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@fb.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@redhat.com>
>> ---
>>  tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c   |  115 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------
>>  tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.h   |    3 +
>>  tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.map |    3 +
>>  3 files changed, 97 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c
>> index ce5ef3ddd263..eb1c5e6ad4a3 100644
>> --- a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c
>> +++ b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c
>> @@ -226,6 +226,8 @@ struct bpf_map {
>>         void *priv;
>>         bpf_map_clear_priv_t clear_priv;
>>         enum libbpf_map_type libbpf_type;
>> +       char *pin_path;
>> +       bool pinned;
>>  };
>>
>>  struct bpf_secdata {
>> @@ -4025,47 +4027,118 @@ int bpf_map__pin(struct bpf_map *map, const char *path)
>>         char *cp, errmsg[STRERR_BUFSIZE];
>>         int err;
>>
>> -       err = check_path(path);
>> -       if (err)
>> -               return err;
>> -
>>         if (map == NULL) {
>>                 pr_warn("invalid map pointer\n");
>>                 return -EINVAL;
>>         }
>>
>> -       if (bpf_obj_pin(map->fd, path)) {
>> -               cp = libbpf_strerror_r(errno, errmsg, sizeof(errmsg));
>> -               pr_warn("failed to pin map: %s\n", cp);
>> -               return -errno;
>> +       if (map->pinned) {
>> +               pr_warn("map already pinned\n");
>
> it would be helpful to print the name of the map, otherwise user will
> have to guess

Well, the existing error message didn't include the map name, so I was
just being consistent. But sure I can change it (and the old message as
well).

>> +               return -EEXIST;
>> +       }
>> +
>> +       if (path && map->pin_path && strcmp(path, map->pin_path)) {
>> +               pr_warn("map already has pin path '%s' different from '%s'\n",
>> +                       map->pin_path, path);
>
> here pin_path probably would be unique enough, but for consistency we
> might want to print map name as well
>
>> +               return -EINVAL;
>> +       }
>> +
>> +       if (!map->pin_path && !path) {
>> +               pr_warn("missing pin path\n");
>
> and here?
>
>> +               return -EINVAL;
>>         }
>>
>> -       pr_debug("pinned map '%s'\n", path);
>> +       if (!map->pin_path) {
>> +               map->pin_path = strdup(path);
>> +               if (!map->pin_path) {
>> +                       err = -errno;
>> +                       goto out_err;
>> +               }
>> +       }
>
> There is a bit of repetition of if conditions, based on whether we
> have map->pin_path set (which is the most critical piece we care
> about), so that makes it a bit harder to follow what's going on. How
> about this structure, would it make a bit clearer what the error
> conditions are? Not insisting, though.
>
> if (map->pin_path) {
>   if (path && strcmp(...))
>     bad, exit
> else { /* no pin_path */
>   if (!path)
>     very bad, exit
>   map->pin_path = strdup(..)
>   if (!map->pin_path)
>     also bad, exit
> }

Hmm, yeah, this may be better...

>> +
>> +       err = check_path(map->pin_path);
>> +       if (err)
>> +               return err;
>> +
>
> [...]
>
>>
>> +int bpf_map__set_pin_path(struct bpf_map *map, const char *path)
>> +{
>> +       char *old = map->pin_path, *new;
>> +
>> +       if (path) {
>> +               new = strdup(path);
>> +               if (!new)
>> +                       return -errno;
>> +       } else {
>> +               new = NULL;
>> +       }
>> +
>> +       map->pin_path = new;
>> +       if (old)
>> +               free(old);
>
> you don't really need old, just free map->pin_path before setting it
> to new. Also assigning new = NULL will simplify if above.

Right, will fix.

>> +
>> +       return 0;
>> +}
>> +
>> +const char *bpf_map__get_pin_path(struct bpf_map *map)
>> +{
>> +       return map->pin_path;
>> +}
>> +
>> +bool bpf_map__is_pinned(struct bpf_map *map)
>> +{
>> +       return map->pinned;
>> +}
>> +
>>  int bpf_object__pin_maps(struct bpf_object *obj, const char *path)
>>  {
>>         struct bpf_map *map;
>> @@ -4106,17 +4179,10 @@ int bpf_object__pin_maps(struct bpf_object *obj, const char *path)
>
> I might have missed something the change in some other patch, but
> shouldn't pin_maps ignore already pinned maps? Otherwise we'll be
> generating unnecessary warnings?

Well, in the previous version this was in one of the options you didn't
like. If I just change pin_maps() unconditionally, that will be a change
in behaviour in an existing API. So I figured it would be better to
leave this as-is. I don't think this function is really useful along
with the auto-pinning anyway. If you're pinning all maps, why use
auto-pinning? And if you want to do something custom to all the
non-pinned maps you'd probably iterate through them yourself anyway and
can react appropriately?

>>
>>  err_unpin_maps:
>>         while ((map = bpf_map__prev(map, obj))) {
>> -               char buf[PATH_MAX];
>> -               int len;
>> -
>> -               len = snprintf(buf, PATH_MAX, "%s/%s", path,
>> -                              bpf_map__name(map));
>> -               if (len < 0)
>> -                       continue;
>> -               else if (len >= PATH_MAX)
>> +               if (!map->pin_path)
>>                         continue;
>>
>> -               bpf_map__unpin(map, buf);
>> +               bpf_map__unpin(map, NULL);
>
> so this will unpin auto-pinned maps (from BTF-defined maps). Is that
> the desired behavior? I guess it might be ok (if you can't pin all of
> your maps, you should probably clean all of them up?), but just
> bringing it up.

Yeah, I realise that. Not entirely sure it's the right thing to do, but
there not really any way to disambiguate how the map was pinned; unless
we want to add another state field just for that? So I guess it's either
"don't do any cleanup" or just "unpin everything". And since I don't
think it'll be terribly useful to combine the use of this function with
auto-pinning anyway, I think it's probably fine to just unpin everything
here?

-Toke