From: Hengqi Chen <hengqi.chen@gmail.com>
To: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com>
Cc: bpf <bpf@vger.kernel.org>, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>, Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>,
john fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next] libbpf: deprecate bpf_object__unload() API
Date: Sun, 3 Oct 2021 00:07:08 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <caac5c66-d1b8-bfd3-d321-6e8347d8b84c@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAEf4BzYhYcyVOJ84REys1nyF8eMaDa0JgAinjgwU_EMvMqOo-g@mail.gmail.com>
On 9/9/21 12:38 PM, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 8, 2021 at 8:35 AM Hengqi Chen <hengqi.chen@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> BPF objects are not re-loadable after unload. User are expected to use
>> bpf_object__close() to unload and free up resources in one operation.
>> No need to expose bpf_object__unload() as a public API, deprecate it.[0]
>> Remove bpf_object__unload() inside bpf_object__load_xattr(), it is the
>> caller's responsibility to free up resources, otherwise, the following
>> code path will cause double-free problem when loading failed:
>>
>> bpf_prog_load
>> bpf_prog_load_xattr
>> bpf_object__load
>> bpf_object__load_xattr
>>
>
> Did you see this double-free ever happen? I'm looking at the code and
> not seeing it. Seems like bpf_object__unload() is idempotent, so no
> mater how many times we call it, it doesn't do any harm. Look at how
> zclose and zfree are implemented, they zero-out fields and also check
> for non-zero values before doing something. So unless I'm missing
> something, there is no problem.
>
>
Sorry, I made a stupid mistake.
Did not realize zclose/zfree are implemented as macros. Will remove these changes.
>> Replace bpf_object__unload() inside bpf_object__close() with the necessary
>> cleanup operations to avoid compilation error.
>>
>> [0] Closes: https://github.com/libbpf/libbpf/issues/290
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Hengqi Chen <hengqi.chen@gmail.com>
>> ---
>> tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c | 8 +++++---
>> tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.h | 3 ++-
>> 2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c
>> index 8f579c6666b2..c56b466c5461 100644
>> --- a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c
>> +++ b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c
>> @@ -6931,7 +6931,6 @@ int bpf_object__load_xattr(struct bpf_object_load_attr *attr)
>> if (obj->maps[i].pinned && !obj->maps[i].reused)
>> bpf_map__unpin(&obj->maps[i], NULL);
>>
>> - bpf_object__unload(obj);
>
> I think unloading already loaded bpf programs is bpf_object__load()'s
> responsibility, so please don't remove this.
>
>> pr_warn("failed to load object '%s'\n", obj->path);
>> return libbpf_err(err);
>> }
>> @@ -7540,12 +7539,15 @@ void bpf_object__close(struct bpf_object *obj)
>>
>> bpf_gen__free(obj->gen_loader);
>> bpf_object__elf_finish(obj);
>> - bpf_object__unload(obj);
>
> same, this is fine, don't remove it
>
OK.
>> btf__free(obj->btf);
>> btf_ext__free(obj->btf_ext);
>>
>> - for (i = 0; i < obj->nr_maps; i++)
>> + for (i = 0; i < obj->nr_maps; i++) {
>> + zclose(obj->maps[i].fd);
>> + if (obj->maps[i].st_ops)
>> + zfree(&obj->maps[i].st_ops->kern_vdata);
>> bpf_map__destroy(&obj->maps[i]);
>> + }
>
> and no changes should be necessary here either
>
Acked.
>>
>> zfree(&obj->btf_custom_path);
>> zfree(&obj->kconfig);
>> diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.h b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.h
>> index 2f6f0e15d1e7..748f7dabe4c7 100644
>> --- a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.h
>> +++ b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.h
>> @@ -147,7 +147,8 @@ struct bpf_object_load_attr {
>> /* Load/unload object into/from kernel */
>> LIBBPF_API int bpf_object__load(struct bpf_object *obj);
>> LIBBPF_API int bpf_object__load_xattr(struct bpf_object_load_attr *attr);
>> -LIBBPF_API int bpf_object__unload(struct bpf_object *obj);
>> +LIBBPF_API LIBBPF_DEPRECATED("bpf_object__unload() is deprecated, use bpf_object__close() instead")
>> +int bpf_object__unload(struct bpf_object *obj);
>>
>
> This is the right change, but let's also keep original
> bpf_object__unload() logic. I'd recommend renaming
> bpf_object__unload() into bpf_object_unload() (so that's naming is
> more clearly showing it's an internal function) and make it static.
> Then have a small shim of bpf_object__unload() calling into
> bpf_object_unload() until we remove that in libbpf 1.0.
>
OK, since LIBBPF_DEPRECATED_SINCE is landed, will use it instead.
>> LIBBPF_API const char *bpf_object__name(const struct bpf_object *obj);
>> LIBBPF_API unsigned int bpf_object__kversion(const struct bpf_object *obj);
>> --
>> 2.25.1
>>
prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-10-02 16:07 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-09-08 15:35 [PATCH bpf-next] libbpf: deprecate bpf_object__unload() API Hengqi Chen
2021-09-09 4:38 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2021-10-02 16:07 ` Hengqi Chen [this message]
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=caac5c66-d1b8-bfd3-d321-6e8347d8b84c@gmail.com \
--to=hengqi.chen@gmail.com \
--cc=andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=john.fastabend@gmail.com \
--cc=yhs@fb.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