From: Quentin Monnet <qmo@kernel.org>
To: Alan Maguire <alan.maguire@oracle.com>,
ast@kernel.org, andrii@kernel.org, eddyz87@gmail.com
Cc: jolsa@kernel.org, daniel@iogearbox.net, ihor.solodrai@linux.dev,
yonghong.song@linux.dev, song@kernel.org, martin.lau@linux.dev,
memxor@gmail.com, emil@etsalapatis.com, bpf@vger.kernel.org,
nsc@kernel.org, puranjay@kernel.org, yatsenko@meta.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 2/3] bpftool: Update func representation to include function signature
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2026 13:07:20 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <7d2f7cea-1055-4ba4-a44e-14078d6d5ef6@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260925095231.879708-3-alan.maguire@oracle.com>
2026-09-25 10:52 UTC+0100 ~ Alan Maguire <alan.maguire@oracle.com>
> Augment func= output for LOCSEC entries to include a mapping from
> function signature to where parameters are stored; for example:
>
> [290179] LOCSEC 'inline.text' vlen=524941
> func='task_pid_nr(tsk [reg0])' func_type_id=136691 loc_proto_type_id=136693 offset=2097226
> func='get_current()' func_type_id=136694 loc_proto_type_id=136695 offset=2097247
> func='arch_static_branch(key [address 0x2e275e8], branch [const 0x0])' func_type_id=136697 loc_proto_type_id=136700 offset=2097296
>
> Fixes: 321562c34d5b ("bpftool: Add ability to dump LOC_PARAM, LOC_PROTO and LOCSEC")
> Suggested-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
> Signed-off-by: Alan Maguire <alan.maguire@oracle.com>
> ---
> tools/bpf/bpftool/btf.c | 100 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
> 1 file changed, 91 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/tools/bpf/bpftool/btf.c b/tools/bpf/bpftool/btf.c
> index e29c8a84e224..6e569ace6add 100644
> --- a/tools/bpf/bpftool/btf.c
> +++ b/tools/bpf/bpftool/btf.c
> @@ -8,6 +8,7 @@
> #include <fcntl.h>
> #include <linux/err.h>
> #include <stdbool.h>
> +#include <stdarg.h>
> #include <stdio.h>
> #include <stdlib.h>
> #include <string.h>
> @@ -234,8 +235,10 @@ static void btf_loc_param_str(const struct btf_type *t, char *str, size_t sz)
> (1ULL << bits) - value;
> }
> }
> - snprintf(num, sizeof(num), "0x%llx%s", (unsigned long long)value,
> - p->flags & BTF_LOC_PARAM_ADDR ? " (addr)" : "");
> + snprintf(num, sizeof(num), "%s0x%llx",
> + p->flags & BTF_LOC_PARAM_ADDR ? "address " :
> + p->flags & BTF_LOC_PARAM_CONST ? "const " : "",
> + (unsigned long long)value);
> }
> if (i != vlen) {
> btf_loc_param_raw_str(p, vlen, str, sz);
Thanks Alan!
bpf-ci's comment about "-const 0x16" instead of "const -0x16" seems
legit, please take a look.
> @@ -252,6 +255,87 @@ static void btf_loc_param_str(const struct btf_type *t, char *str, size_t sz)
> p->flags & BTF_LOC_PARAM_DEREF ? ")" : "");
> }
>
> +static int btf_locsec_append(char *str, size_t sz, size_t *off,
> + const char *fmt, ...)
> +{
> + va_list args;
> + int ret;
> +
> + if (!sz || *off >= sz - 1)
> + return -ENOSPC;
> +
> + va_start(args, fmt);
> + ret = vsnprintf(str + *off, sz - *off, fmt, args);
Nit: Do you really need vsnprintf()? It looks like you always
concatenate, never format any number, so it's probably not the most
efficient. I don't mind much, though.
> + va_end(args);
> + if (ret < 0 || (size_t)ret >= sz - *off) {
> + *off = sz - 1;
> + return -ENOSPC;
It seems unlikely we'll hit this, but maybe warn that the string is
truncated in that case, or replace the last characters with "..." or
"[truncated]" or something like this??
> + }
> + *off += ret;
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static void btf_locsec_func_str(const struct btf *btf,
> + const struct btf_loc *loc, char *str, size_t sz)
> +{
> + const struct btf_type *func, *func_proto, *loc_proto;
> + const struct btf_param *params;
> + const __u32 *loc_params;
> + const char *name;
> + __u32 i, vlen;
> + size_t off = 0;
> +
> + if (!sz)
> + return;
> +
> + str[0] = '\0';
> + func = btf__type_by_id(btf, loc->func);
> + if (!func || !btf_is_func(func))
> + goto invalid;
> +
> + name = btf_str(btf, func->name_off);
> + func_proto = btf__type_by_id(btf, func->type);
> + loc_proto = btf__type_by_id(btf, loc->loc_proto);
> + if (!func_proto || !btf_is_func_proto(func_proto) ||
> + !loc_proto || !btf_is_loc_proto(loc_proto) ||
> + btf_vlen(func_proto) != btf_vlen(loc_proto))
> + goto invalid;
> +
> + params = (const void *)(func_proto + 1);
> + loc_params = btf_loc_proto_params(loc_proto);
> + vlen = btf_vlen(func_proto);
> + if (btf_locsec_append(str, sz, &off, "%s(", name))
> + return;
> + for (i = 0; i < vlen; i++) {
> + const struct btf_type *param_loc;
> + char param_str[256] = {};
> +
> + if (!params[i].type) {
> + /* Handle varargs func proto, must be last parameter */
> + if (i != vlen - 1)
> + goto invalid;
> + if (btf_locsec_append(str, sz, &off, "%s...", i ? ", " : ""))
> + return;
> + break;
> + } else if (loc_params[i]) {
> + param_loc = btf__type_by_id(btf, loc_params[i]);
> + btf_loc_param_str(param_loc, param_str, sizeof(param_str));
> + } else {
> + snprintf(param_str, sizeof(param_str), "<unavailable>");
> + }
> +
> + if (btf_locsec_append(str, sz, &off, "%s%s [%s]",
> + i ? ", " : "", btf_str(btf, params[i].name_off),
> + param_str))
> + return;
> + }
> + (void) btf_locsec_append(str, sz, &off, ")");
> + return;
> +
> +invalid:
> + snprintf(str, sz, "<invalid>");
> +}
> +
> static int dump_btf_type(const struct btf *btf, __u32 id,
> const struct btf_type *t)
> {
> @@ -617,22 +701,20 @@ static int dump_btf_type(const struct btf *btf, __u32 id,
> }
>
> for (i = 0; i < vlen; i++, locs++) {
> - const struct btf_type *f = btf__type_by_id(btf, locs->func);
> - const char *name = "<invalid>";
> + char func_str[1024] = {};
>
> - if (f && btf_is_func(f))
> - name = btf_str(btf, f->name_off);
> + btf_locsec_func_str(btf, locs, func_str, sizeof(func_str));
>
> if (json_output) {
> jsonw_start_object(w);
> jsonw_uint_field(w, "func_type_id", locs->func);
> - jsonw_string_field(w, "name", name);
> + jsonw_string_field(w, "func", func_str);
Would it be worth keeping the name, too, in the JSON? So that if
somebody wants the name only, they don't have to parse it from "func"?
> jsonw_uint_field(w, "loc_proto_type_id", locs->loc_proto);
> jsonw_uint_field(w, "offset", locs->offset);
> jsonw_end_object(w);
> } else {
> - printf("\n\tname='%s' func_type_id=%u loc_proto_type_id=%u offset=%u",
> - name, locs->func, locs->loc_proto, locs->offset);
> + printf("\n\tfunc='%s' func_type_id=%u loc_proto_type_id=%u offset=%u",
> + func_str, locs->func, locs->loc_proto, locs->offset);
> }
> }
> if (json_output)
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-09-25 12:07 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-09-25 9:52 [PATCH bpf-next 0/3] BTF inline functionality followups Alan Maguire
2026-09-25 9:52 ` [PATCH bpf-next 1/3] bpf: Verify BTF_KIND_LOC_PARAM vlen, flags Alan Maguire
2026-09-25 9:52 ` [PATCH bpf-next 2/3] bpftool: Update func representation to include function signature Alan Maguire
2026-09-25 10:36 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-09-25 12:07 ` Quentin Monnet [this message]
2026-09-25 14:58 ` Alan Maguire
2026-09-25 9:52 ` [PATCH bpf-next 3/3] selftests/bpf: Fix up bpftool btf dump test for signatures Alan Maguire
2026-09-25 10:36 ` bot+bpf-ci
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=7d2f7cea-1055-4ba4-a44e-14078d6d5ef6@kernel.org \
--to=qmo@kernel.org \
--cc=alan.maguire@oracle.com \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=eddyz87@gmail.com \
--cc=emil@etsalapatis.com \
--cc=ihor.solodrai@linux.dev \
--cc=jolsa@kernel.org \
--cc=martin.lau@linux.dev \
--cc=memxor@gmail.com \
--cc=nsc@kernel.org \
--cc=puranjay@kernel.org \
--cc=song@kernel.org \
--cc=yatsenko@meta.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