From: Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@fomichev.me>
To: Quentin Monnet <quentin.monnet@netronome.com>
Cc: Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@google.com>,
netdev@vger.kernel.org, ast@kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net,
daniel@iogearbox.net, ecree@solarflare.com,
OSS-drivers Netronome <oss-drivers@netronome.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 1/6] selftests/bpf: add map/prog type probe helpers
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2018 11:16:28 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20181214191628.GA20955@mini-arch.hsd1.ca.comcast.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <a01d0e36-68bf-a559-48cd-7400156e9caa@netronome.com>
On 12/14, Quentin Monnet wrote:
> 2018-12-14 10:16 UTC-0800 ~ Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@fomichev.me>
> > On 12/14, Quentin Monnet wrote:
> >> Hi Stanislav,
> >>
> >> 2018-12-13 11:02 UTC-0800 ~ Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@google.com>
> >>> Export bpf_map_type_supported() and bpf_prog_type_supported() which
> >>> return true/false to indicate kernel support for the appropriate
> >>> program or map type. These helpers will be used in the next commits
> >>> to selectively skip test_verifier/test_maps tests.
> >>>
> >>> bpf_map_type_supported() supports only limited set of maps for which we
> >>> do fixups in the test_verifier, for unknown maps it falls back to
> >>> 'supported'.
> >>
> >> Why would you fall back on “supported” if it does not know about them?
> >> Would that be worth having an enum as a return type (..._SUPPORTED,
> >> ..._UNSUPPORTED, ..._UNKNOWN) maybe? Or default to not supported?
> > I thought that it's safer for verifier to FAIL in case we forgot to add
> > a specific map support to bpf_map_type_supported(). This is not the case
> > if we were to use your version where you try to support every map type.
> >
> >> Not related - We would need to put a warning somewhere, maybe a comment
> >> in the header, that using probes repeatedly in a short amount of time
> >> needs to update resources limits (setrlimit()), otherwise probes won't
> >> work correctly.
> > If we were to move this to libbpf, yes. For tests, I think we include
> > bpr_rlimit.h everywhere and things just work :-)
>
> Hmm. I was so focused on bpftool and libbpf that somehow I read you
> patch as a proposal to include these probes directly into libbpf. Which,
> as you explain (and as I should have read), is not the case. So please
> accept my apologies, in this case your decisions (here and in the rest
> of the patch) make sense to me :).
No worries, I was just scratching my own itch with these (wanted to have
a simple non-controversial probers for the test cases, I can migrate
to your libbpf helpers whenever they are available).
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-12-14 19:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-12-13 19:02 [PATCH bpf-next 0/6] skip verifier/map tests if kernel support is missing Stanislav Fomichev
2018-12-13 19:02 ` [PATCH bpf-next 1/6] selftests/bpf: add map/prog type probe helpers Stanislav Fomichev
2018-12-14 12:32 ` Quentin Monnet
2018-12-14 18:16 ` Stanislav Fomichev
2018-12-14 18:37 ` Quentin Monnet
2018-12-14 19:16 ` Stanislav Fomichev [this message]
2018-12-13 19:02 ` [PATCH bpf-next 2/6] selftests/bpf: skip sockmap in test_maps if kernel doesn't have support Stanislav Fomichev
2018-12-13 19:02 ` [PATCH bpf-next 3/6] selftests/bpf: skip verifier tests for unsupported program types Stanislav Fomichev
2018-12-13 19:02 ` [PATCH bpf-next 4/6] selftests/bpf: skip verifier tests for unsupported map types Stanislav Fomichev
2018-12-13 19:03 ` [PATCH bpf-next 5/6] selftests/bpf: mark verifier test that uses bpf_trace_printk as BPF_PROG_TYPE_TRACEPOINT Stanislav Fomichev
2018-12-13 19:03 ` [PATCH bpf-next 6/6] bpf: BPF_PROG_TYPE_CGROUP_{SKB,SOCK,SOCK_ADDR} require cgroups enabled Stanislav Fomichev
2018-12-15 1:11 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2018-12-15 20:40 ` Stanislav Fomichev
2018-12-17 18:16 ` Stanislav Fomichev
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=20181214191628.GA20955@mini-arch.hsd1.ca.comcast.net \
--to=sdf@fomichev.me \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=ecree@solarflare.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=oss-drivers@netronome.com \
--cc=quentin.monnet@netronome.com \
--cc=sdf@google.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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).