From: Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@linux.dev>
To: thinker.li@gmail.com
Cc: sinquersw@gmail.com, kuifeng@meta.com, bpf@vger.kernel.org,
ast@kernel.org, song@kernel.org, kernel-team@meta.com,
andrii@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC bpf-next v2 1/9] bpf: refactory struct_ops type initialization to a function.
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2023 15:43:54 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <34a6af4f-ef3d-7e34-0c71-3c76d8f299e2@linux.dev> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230913061449.1918219-2-thinker.li@gmail.com>
On 9/12/23 11:14 PM, thinker.li@gmail.com wrote:
> From: Kui-Feng Lee <thinker.li@gmail.com>
>
> Move most of code to bpf_struct_ops_init_one() that can be use to
> initialize new struct_ops types registered dynamically.
While in RFC, still better to have SOB so that it won't be overlooked in the future.
> ---
> kernel/bpf/bpf_struct_ops.c | 157 +++++++++++++++++++-----------------
> 1 file changed, 83 insertions(+), 74 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/bpf_struct_ops.c b/kernel/bpf/bpf_struct_ops.c
> index fdc3e8705a3c..1662875e0ebe 100644
> --- a/kernel/bpf/bpf_struct_ops.c
> +++ b/kernel/bpf/bpf_struct_ops.c
> @@ -110,102 +110,111 @@ const struct bpf_prog_ops bpf_struct_ops_prog_ops = {
>
> static const struct btf_type *module_type;
>
> -void bpf_struct_ops_init(struct btf *btf, struct bpf_verifier_log *log)
> +static void bpf_struct_ops_init_one(struct bpf_struct_ops *st_ops,
> + struct btf *btf,
> + struct bpf_verifier_log *log)
> {
> - s32 type_id, value_id, module_id;
> const struct btf_member *member;
> - struct bpf_struct_ops *st_ops;
> const struct btf_type *t;
> + s32 type_id, value_id;
> char value_name[128];
> const char *mname;
> - u32 i, j;
> + int i;
>
> - /* Ensure BTF type is emitted for "struct bpf_struct_ops_##_name" */
> -#define BPF_STRUCT_OPS_TYPE(_name) BTF_TYPE_EMIT(struct bpf_struct_ops_##_name);
> -#include "bpf_struct_ops_types.h"
> -#undef BPF_STRUCT_OPS_TYPE
> + if (strlen(st_ops->name) + VALUE_PREFIX_LEN >=
> + sizeof(value_name)) {
> + pr_warn("struct_ops name %s is too long\n",
> + st_ops->name);
> + return;
> + }
> + sprintf(value_name, "%s%s", VALUE_PREFIX, st_ops->name);
>
> - module_id = btf_find_by_name_kind(btf, "module", BTF_KIND_STRUCT);
> - if (module_id < 0) {
> - pr_warn("Cannot find struct module in btf_vmlinux\n");
> + value_id = btf_find_by_name_kind(btf, value_name,
> + BTF_KIND_STRUCT);
It needs to do some sanity checks on the value_type since this won't be
statically enforced by bpf_struct_ops.c.
[ ... ]
> +void bpf_struct_ops_init(struct btf *btf, struct bpf_verifier_log *log)
> +{
> + struct bpf_struct_ops *st_ops;
> + s32 module_id;
> + u32 i;
>
> - if (__btf_member_bitfield_size(t, member)) {
> - pr_warn("bit field member %s in struct %s is not supported\n",
> - mname, st_ops->name);
> - break;
> - }
> + /* Ensure BTF type is emitted for "struct bpf_struct_ops_##_name" */
> +#define BPF_STRUCT_OPS_TYPE(_name) BTF_TYPE_EMIT(struct bpf_struct_ops_##_name);
> +#include "bpf_struct_ops_types.h"
> +#undef BPF_STRUCT_OPS_TYPE
Can this static way of defining struct_ops be removed? bpf_tcp_ca should be able
to use the register_bpf_struct_ops() introduced in patch 2.
For the future subsystem supporting struct_ops, the subsystem could be compiled
as a kernel module or as a built-in. register_bpf_struct_ops() should work for both.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-09-15 22:44 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-09-13 6:14 [RFC bpf-next v2 0/9] Registrating struct_ops types from modules thinker.li
2023-09-13 6:14 ` [RFC bpf-next v2 1/9] bpf: refactory struct_ops type initialization to a function thinker.li
2023-09-15 22:43 ` Martin KaFai Lau [this message]
2023-09-16 1:35 ` Kui-Feng Lee
2023-09-13 6:14 ` [RFC bpf-next v2 2/9] bpf: add register and unregister functions for struct_ops thinker.li
2023-09-16 0:05 ` Martin KaFai Lau
2023-09-16 1:14 ` Kui-Feng Lee
2023-09-18 18:47 ` Martin KaFai Lau
2023-09-18 20:40 ` Kui-Feng Lee
2023-09-13 6:14 ` [RFC bpf-next v2 3/9] bpf: attach a module BTF to a bpf_struct_ops thinker.li
2023-09-13 6:14 ` [RFC bpf-next v2 4/9] bpf: use attached BTF to find correct type info of struct_ops progs thinker.li
2023-09-13 6:14 ` [RFC bpf-next v2 5/9] bpf: hold module for bpf_struct_ops_map thinker.li
2023-09-13 6:14 ` [RFC bpf-next v2 6/9] libbpf: Find correct module BTFs for struct_ops maps and progs thinker.li
2023-09-13 6:14 ` [RFC bpf-next v2 7/9] bpf: export btf_ctx_access to modules thinker.li
2023-09-13 6:14 ` [RFC bpf-next v2 8/9] selftests/bpf: test case for register_bpf_struct_ops() thinker.li
2023-09-13 6:14 ` [RFC bpf-next v2 9/9] Comments and debug thinker.li
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=34a6af4f-ef3d-7e34-0c71-3c76d8f299e2@linux.dev \
--to=martin.lau@linux.dev \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=kernel-team@meta.com \
--cc=kuifeng@meta.com \
--cc=sinquersw@gmail.com \
--cc=song@kernel.org \
--cc=thinker.li@gmail.com \
/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