Re: [PATCH v4 bpf-next 7/9] libbpf: add libbpf support to batch ops

Brian Vazquez
2020-01-14T18:54:03Z

On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 10:36 AM Andrii Nakryiko
<andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 8:46 AM Brian Vazquez <brianvv@google.com> wrote:
> >
> > From: Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>
> >
> > Added four libbpf API functions to support map batch operations:
> > . int bpf_map_delete_batch( ... )
> > . int bpf_map_lookup_batch( ... )
> > . int bpf_map_lookup_and_delete_batch( ... )
> > . int bpf_map_update_batch( ... )
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>
> > ---
> > tools/lib/bpf/bpf.c | 60 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > tools/lib/bpf/bpf.h | 22 +++++++++++++++
> > tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.map | 4 +++
> > 3 files changed, 86 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/bpf.c b/tools/lib/bpf/bpf.c
> > index 500afe478e94a..12ce8d275f7dc 100644
> > --- a/tools/lib/bpf/bpf.c
> > +++ b/tools/lib/bpf/bpf.c
> > @@ -452,6 +452,66 @@ int bpf_map_freeze(int fd)
> > return sys_bpf(BPF_MAP_FREEZE, &attr, sizeof(attr));
> > }
> >
> > +static int bpf_map_batch_common(int cmd, int fd, void *in_batch,
> > + void *out_batch, void *keys, void *values,
> > + __u32 *count,
> > + const struct bpf_map_batch_opts *opts)
> > +{
> > + union bpf_attr attr = {};
> > + int ret;
> > +
> > + if (!OPTS_VALID(opts, bpf_map_batch_opts))
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > +
> > + memset(&attr, 0, sizeof(attr));
> > + attr.batch.map_fd = fd;
> > + attr.batch.in_batch = ptr_to_u64(in_batch);
> > + attr.batch.out_batch = ptr_to_u64(out_batch);
> > + attr.batch.keys = ptr_to_u64(keys);
> > + attr.batch.values = ptr_to_u64(values);
> > + if (count)
> > + attr.batch.count = *count;
> > + attr.batch.elem_flags = OPTS_GET(opts, elem_flags, 0);
> > + attr.batch.flags = OPTS_GET(opts, flags, 0);
> > +
> > + ret = sys_bpf(cmd, &attr, sizeof(attr));
> > + if (count)
> > + *count = attr.batch.count;
>
> what if syscall failed, do you still want to assign *count then?

Hi Andrii, thanks for taking a look.

attr.batch.count should report the number of entries correctly
processed before finding and error, an example could be when you
provided a buffer for 3 entries and the map only has 1, ret is going
to be -ENOENT meaning that you traversed the map and you still want to
assign *count.

That being said, the condition 'if (count)' is wrong and I think it
should be removed.

>
> > +
> > + return ret;
> > +}
> > +
>
> …