From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-pj1-f53.google.com (mail-pj1-f53.google.com [209.85.216.53]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EC7FD13EFE3; Sat, 8 Feb 2025 15:37:41 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.216.53 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1739029063; cv=none; b=NHj2h5wzw515e4BBPeXfyfEx94UPS3JJntIxppREV89Z9UFdCb/LXwSr81dYt/+kNapwDaKuocpN4fdgVM2iihKSpY/kMvmlcfmCaihRNRrzWrySi16awB6J73sQ6GzPY0P+spcE3Hn8hax+oGVI5renOr3r0GNDZ4/2BRocyZ4= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1739029063; c=relaxed/simple; bh=VWCQV1asK8mkBC5s9MXTmP3MYrgvswMj5EQIzW1lZ+w=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=qZata5OxdjV5FEnNPNW+wD/Oxto/rJLreP6TYwx0YCPz4VAVYqxKDYxon8xEBij1CFrRox+Zwh9z3y8H4lnR3o3Wbwy85NT0NaCpELbEz5BQVW66DgSom2KqfZ7++OGGnkGlo6mfxis+uCDYeIsaTNK6qg0uuXnHvBTX0xJBmcE= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b=AZHw5krk; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.216.53 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="AZHw5krk" Received: by mail-pj1-f53.google.com with SMTP id 98e67ed59e1d1-2fa44590eebso1197901a91.3; Sat, 08 Feb 2025 07:37:41 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1739029061; x=1739633861; darn=vger.kernel.org; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:references:cc:to:subject :user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=tkMGKQ7AKClIujpM9LEQv3XkqSpczhRaDa7fxIiDIII=; b=AZHw5krk9RHxrj2N0FBYEJUwbM5D8EnIWdaiBC0dJFAXL1/z4YsG4xFG6cz33iN6pL jZQpycoMnc5RLOzrgBlOBrg7GYfkGtlR/Bym0okuw96C+l+pGIHcOV155/U9Cz17f8Uk 0G5pl1bXQODCM5/O4jtAWyWi7fCkhJEE6/I5FfoX/uoIlp3PDJJX4o+mYhdf9UD7LZlK Vg44Njvpc2bRaGP9FVv9DPey7IODqiBbHMs7XS4msgge/a/Ww+CdLJGMqfMoLY4cLYNH UgPta1cHn+5Nd74cunYXhKcSWzbs8NcI33FO47GEg8uv2JHk0yM1RoRuEPfm0qcpNdLq qWrw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1739029061; x=1739633861; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:references:cc:to:subject :user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id:x-gm-message-state:from:to :cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=tkMGKQ7AKClIujpM9LEQv3XkqSpczhRaDa7fxIiDIII=; b=Hgg4XnFmkwsXw5Ho374+Z7EN2UPCCx4LEL2maCU6E67l/a167iAp9lQjykiKelmx/0 7yIu5UA/FUS8wZqgCg8mQQ7JwyFNOzj+qq4lp+IJNgJks/yqzFwpOoaPb0dhSH5xTIZ6 KPPVpuxuQnd4BWT9DYp74nw3s6q9h7io9keuiLiv0NYS2vnkG07qddnIpxFPGFDkjVJg KClwmtf7K5NTtIq2UrPZTUIKIdscoW/aiR74nMiAoS6L59VkuRe1oUMu7mQnbnKwhDq/ DLmeJPTC+n0fIWRBGMiEBO0iF31f1MOzeIgTUwn1JMEt82ac3lTuLsuodhAbtEGy1yg2 a2Pw== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCWDVeJWUYHGmUaxLmLkK0eF7PyVwFtudv4J3PBa9YypLz+khsIR7bGxLs9IPYRQT98XY9XanK56aaazMtk=@vger.kernel.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YzOC5IzYds1PSQans7Wy/BnmAYzu6PtP/bXd+CM3fIxiJgM7vne aKLomfd1rOpB+Zrd2yySuEqtspxSNHtwNc5RWgmVBjaN8/rePD8A X-Gm-Gg: ASbGncs4qyBiCpekFNHngPBIZHu+WetsNU7FXfL0z5zRfh7wiHVKM9ELOa1vw3mvz/Y uIzJ/1vK+XwoL2pMmxmdnKjO6KPbPl7dbalM0udd+uwXGXMbU1S7OEzN0oKQgiM/JOb4P6EE4mc 6i/f/bNSzN53BwLt+109srw6d9P8xH442I6kIZXAFfTIr+mkP54QbDoj8zmFJHcy8hUONpw4P39 BRPWXRoCrmNzfQuT+uzLLdxCDLfefi6Uok/ZBqtnYEraIINlD1vifcto2eMCKAHZJPzh6NhhB8S cQpYA85p4R1gCY81XkxwC0X6Emx0wSSzTw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IEBiOdQixE/sEDSsEkCVBnZLT/H+JJ+GndkTmkOgrdPvikWjN62GqJMO8StduJyqgmGsrZUHQ== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6a00:c92:b0:725:df1a:27c with SMTP id d2e1a72fcca58-7305d4956ccmr11579244b3a.14.1739029060886; Sat, 08 Feb 2025 07:37:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.50.123] ([117.147.91.64]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id d2e1a72fcca58-73048a9d4d7sm4883411b3a.16.2025.02.08.07.37.36 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 08 Feb 2025 07:37:40 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2025 23:37:13 +0800 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: bpf@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v4 3/4] libbpf: Add libbpf_probe_bpf_kfunc API To: Eduard Zingerman , ast@kernel.org, daniel@iogearbox.net, andrii@kernel.org, haoluo@google.com, jolsa@kernel.org, qmo@kernel.org Cc: bpf@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <20250206051557.27913-1-chen.dylane@gmail.com> <20250206051557.27913-4-chen.dylane@gmail.com> <7d667c037e7396fb88cf243162c5aa8a537858bb.camel@gmail.com> From: Tao Chen In-Reply-To: <7d667c037e7396fb88cf243162c5aa8a537858bb.camel@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit 在 2025/2/8 06:35, Eduard Zingerman 写道: > On Thu, 2025-02-06 at 13:15 +0800, Tao Chen wrote: > > [...] > >> LIBBPF_API int libbpf_probe_bpf_helper(enum bpf_prog_type prog_type, >> enum bpf_func_id helper_id, const void *opts); >> - >> +/** >> + * @brief **libbpf_probe_bpf_kfunc()** detects if host kernel supports the >> + * use of a given BPF kfunc from specified BPF program type. >> + * @param prog_type BPF program type used to check the support of BPF kfunc >> + * @param kfunc_id The btf ID of BPF kfunc to check support for >> + * @param btf_fd The module BTF FD, if kfunc is defined in kernel module, >> + * btf_fd is used to point to module's BTF, 0 means kfunc defined in vmlinux. > > Regarding '0' as special value: > in general FD is considered invalid only if it's negative, 0 is a valid FD. > Andrii, I remember there was a lengthy discussion about FD==0 and BPF, > but I don't remember the conclusion. > >> + * @param opts reserved for future extensibility, should be NULL >> + * @return 1, if given combination of program type and kfunc is supported; 0, >> + * if the combination is not supported; negative error code if feature >> + * detection for provided input arguments failed or can't be performed >> + * >> + * Make sure the process has required set of CAP_* permissions (or runs as >> + * root) when performing feature checking. >> + */ >> +LIBBPF_API int libbpf_probe_bpf_kfunc(enum bpf_prog_type prog_type, >> + int kfunc_id, int btf_fd, const void *opts); >> /** >> * @brief **libbpf_num_possible_cpus()** is a helper function to get the >> * number of possible CPUs that the host kernel supports and expects. >> diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.map b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.map >> index a8b2936a1646..e93fae101efd 100644 >> --- a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.map >> +++ b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.map >> @@ -436,4 +436,5 @@ LIBBPF_1.6.0 { >> bpf_linker__add_buf; >> bpf_linker__add_fd; >> bpf_linker__new_fd; >> + libbpf_probe_bpf_kfunc; > > This is now in conflict with bpf-next. > My bad, i will rebase the repo. >> } LIBBPF_1.5.0; >> diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf_probes.c b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf_probes.c >> index e142130cb83c..c7f2b2dfbcf1 100644 >> --- a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf_probes.c >> +++ b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf_probes.c >> @@ -433,6 +433,61 @@ static bool can_probe_prog_type(enum bpf_prog_type prog_type) >> return true; >> } >> >> +int libbpf_probe_bpf_kfunc(enum bpf_prog_type prog_type, int kfunc_id, int btf_fd, >> + const void *opts) >> +{ >> + struct bpf_insn insns[] = { >> + BPF_RAW_INSN(BPF_JMP | BPF_CALL, 0, BPF_PSEUDO_KFUNC_CALL, btf_fd, kfunc_id), >> + BPF_EXIT_INSN(), >> + }; >> + const size_t insn_cnt = ARRAY_SIZE(insns); >> + char buf[4096]; >> + int *fd_array = NULL; >> + size_t fd_array_cnt = 0, fd_array_cap = fd_array_cnt; >> + int ret; >> + >> + if (opts) >> + return libbpf_err(-EINVAL); >> + >> + if (!can_probe_prog_type(prog_type)) >> + return -EOPNOTSUPP; >> + >> + if (btf_fd) { >> + ret = libbpf_ensure_mem((void **)&fd_array, &fd_array_cap, >> + sizeof(int), fd_array_cnt + btf_fd); > > Please take a look at the tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/fd_array.c, > e.g. test case check_fd_array_cnt__fd_array_ok(). The offset field of the > call instruction does not have to be an fd (as it only has 16 bits), > instead it's an offset inside the fd_array. > Here it would be sufficient to allocate a small array on stack. > Good idea，thanks for your guidance，I'll make the modifications in the next version. >> + if (ret) >> + return ret; >> + >> + /* In kernel, obtain the btf fd by means of the offset of >> + * the fd_array, and the offset is the btf fd. >> + */ >> + fd_array[btf_fd] = btf_fd; >> + } > > [...] > -- Best Regards Dylane Chen