From: Kui-Feng Lee <sinquersw@gmail.com>
To: Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@linux.dev>, thinker.li@gmail.com
Cc: kuifeng@meta.com, bpf@vger.kernel.org, ast@kernel.org,
song@kernel.org, kernel-team@meta.com, andrii@kernel.org,
drosen@google.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v5 2/9] bpf: add struct_ops_tab to btf.
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2023 09:15:52 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4d5fb1e0-face-45ec-88fd-0da8db392efb@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <44b8676b-fe0e-5f32-508e-7c223fd63213@linux.dev>
On 10/18/23 19:28, Martin KaFai Lau wrote:
> On 10/17/23 9:22 AM, thinker.li@gmail.com wrote:
>> +const struct bpf_struct_ops **btf_get_struct_ops(struct btf *btf, u32
>> *ret_cnt)
>> +{
>> + if (!btf)
>> + return NULL;
>> + if (!btf->struct_ops_tab)
>> + return NULL;
>> +
>> + *ret_cnt = btf->struct_ops_tab->cnt;
>> + return (const struct bpf_struct_ops **)btf->struct_ops_tab->ops;
>
> Is it possible that the module is already gone here? If that is the
> case, the st_ops pointer probably cannot be used?
The callers should call bpf_try_get_module() before calling this
function. I will check the code to ensure all callers do that in
the next version.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-10-19 16:15 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-10-17 16:22 [PATCH bpf-next v5 0/9] Registrating struct_ops types from modules thinker.li
2023-10-17 16:22 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 1/9] bpf: refactory struct_ops type initialization to a function thinker.li
2023-10-17 16:22 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 2/9] bpf: add struct_ops_tab to btf thinker.li
2023-10-19 0:00 ` Martin KaFai Lau
2023-10-19 0:33 ` Kui-Feng Lee
2023-10-19 2:28 ` Martin KaFai Lau
2023-10-19 16:15 ` Kui-Feng Lee [this message]
2023-10-17 16:23 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 3/9] bpf: hold module for bpf_struct_ops_map thinker.li
2023-10-19 0:36 ` Martin KaFai Lau
2023-10-19 16:29 ` Kui-Feng Lee
2023-10-20 5:07 ` Kui-Feng Lee
2023-10-20 21:37 ` Martin KaFai Lau
2023-10-20 22:28 ` Kui-Feng Lee
2023-10-17 16:23 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 4/9] bpf: validate value_type thinker.li
2023-10-17 16:23 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 5/9] bpf: pass attached BTF to the bpf_struct_ops subsystem thinker.li
2023-10-17 16:23 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 6/9] bpf, net: switch to dynamic registration thinker.li
2023-10-19 1:49 ` Martin KaFai Lau
2023-10-20 15:12 ` Kui-Feng Lee
2023-10-20 17:53 ` Kui-Feng Lee
2023-10-17 16:23 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 7/9] libbpf: Find correct module BTFs for struct_ops maps and progs thinker.li
2023-10-17 21:49 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2023-10-18 2:25 ` Kui-Feng Lee
2023-10-19 2:43 ` Martin KaFai Lau
2023-10-19 16:31 ` Kui-Feng Lee
2023-10-17 16:23 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 8/9] bpf: export btf_ctx_access to modules thinker.li
2023-10-17 16:23 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 9/9] selftests/bpf: test case for register_bpf_struct_ops() thinker.li
2023-10-17 18:03 ` kernel test robot
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=4d5fb1e0-face-45ec-88fd-0da8db392efb@gmail.com \
--to=sinquersw@gmail.com \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=drosen@google.com \
--cc=kernel-team@meta.com \
--cc=kuifeng@meta.com \
--cc=martin.lau@linux.dev \
--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