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 15:38:25 -0800
Message-ID: <20181107153825.5d3d5d15@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>
        <20181107150605.59a8ac1c@cakuba.netronome.com>
        <20181107232516.qiy24ccbq3hh4ail@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-f195.google.com ([209.85.215.195]:43271 "EHLO
        mail-pg1-f195.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1727591AbeKHJLL (ORCPT
        <rfc822;netdev@vger.kernel.org>); Thu, 8 Nov 2018 04:11:11 -0500
Received: by mail-pg1-f195.google.com with SMTP id n10-v6so7979672pgv.10
        for <netdev@vger.kernel.org>; Wed, 07 Nov 2018 15:38:29 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <20181107232516.qiy24ccbq3hh4ail@mini-arch>
Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <netdev.vger.kernel.org>

On Wed, 7 Nov 2018 15:25:16 -0800, Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
> On 11/07, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > 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..  
>
> That sounds more complicated than just ensuring that the top directory
> for the pins doesn't exist and then rm -rf it on failure.

Why would we require that the directory does not exist?  We can
check if it exists and then either create or just pin all in an existing
one.

I don't think it should be that much effort to write a reverse for
loop - it could actually be less LoC than that rm_rf function :)

> I'm thinking about copy-pasting rm_rf from perf
> (https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/tools/perf/util/util.c#n119).
> Thoughts?
>
> Btw, current patch won't work because of those /0 added by bpf_program__pin.