From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@netronome.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 2/3] libbpf: cleanup after partial failure in
 bpf_object__pin
Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2018 15:06:05 -0800
Message-ID: <20181107150605.59a8ac1c@cakuba.netronome.com>
References: <20181107224356.73080-1-sdf@google.com>
        <20181107224356.73080-3-sdf@google.com>
        <20181107145648.66f47037@cakuba.netronome.com>
        <20181107230021.4yr2h6fpzhvarfcj@mini-arch>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@google.com>, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, ast@kernel.org,
        daniel@iogearbox.net, shuah@kernel.org,
        quentin.monnet@netronome.com, guro@fb.com,
        jiong.wang@netronome.com, bhole_prashant_q7@lab.ntt.co.jp,
        john.fastabend@gmail.com, jbenc@redhat.com,
        treeze.taeung@gmail.com, yhs@fb.com, osk@fb.com,
        sandipan@linux.vnet.ibm.com
To: Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@fomichev.me>
Return-path: <netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mail-pg1-f196.google.com ([209.85.215.196]:42271 "EHLO
        mail-pg1-f196.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1726896AbeKHIio (ORCPT
        <rfc822;netdev@vger.kernel.org>); Thu, 8 Nov 2018 03:38:44 -0500
Received: by mail-pg1-f196.google.com with SMTP id i4-v6so7954122pgq.9
        for <netdev@vger.kernel.org>; Wed, 07 Nov 2018 15:06:09 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <20181107230021.4yr2h6fpzhvarfcj@mini-arch>
Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <netdev.vger.kernel.org>

On Wed, 7 Nov 2018 15:00:21 -0800, Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
> > > +err_unpin_programs:
> > > +	bpf_object__for_each_program(prog, obj) {
> > > +		char buf[PATH_MAX];
> > > +		int len;
> > > +
> > > +		len = snprintf(buf, PATH_MAX, "%s/%s", path,
> > > +			       prog->section_name);
> > > +		if (len < 0)
> > > +			continue;
> > > +		else if (len >= PATH_MAX)
> > > +			continue;
> > > +
> > > +		unlink(buf);  
> > 
> > I think that's no bueno, if pin failed because the file already exists
> > you'll now remove that already existing file.  
>
> How about we check beforehand and bail early if we are going to
> overwrite something?

Possible, although the most common way to handle situation like this in
the kernel is to "continue the iteration in reverse" over the list.
I.e. walk the list back.  I think the objects are on a double linked
list.  You may need to add the appropriate foreach macro and helper..