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
next prev 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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox