Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 11:13 AM Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>
>> > On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 9:08 AM Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> From: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> >>
>> >> When pinning a map, store the pin path in struct bpf_map so it can be
>> >> re-used later for un-pinning. This simplifies the later addition of per-map
>> >> pin paths.
>> >>
>> >> Signed-off-by: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> >> ---
>> >> tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c | 19 ++++++++++---------
>> >> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>> >>
>> >> diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c
>> >> index cccfd9355134..b4fdd8ee3bbd 100644
>> >> --- a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c
>> >> +++ b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c
>> >> @@ -226,6 +226,7 @@ struct bpf_map {
>> >> void *priv;
>> >> bpf_map_clear_priv_t clear_priv;
>> >> enum libbpf_map_type libbpf_type;
>> >> + char *pin_path;
>> >> };
>> >>
>> >> struct bpf_secdata {
>> >> @@ -1929,6 +1930,7 @@ int bpf_map__reuse_fd(struct bpf_map *map, int fd)
>> >> if (err)
>> >> goto err_close_new_fd;
>> >> free(map->name);
>> >> + zfree(&map->pin_path);
>> >>
>> >
>> > While you are touching this function, can you please also fix error
>> > handling in it? We should store -errno locally on error, before we
>> > call close() which might change errno.
>>
>> Didn't actually look much at the surrounding function, TBH. I do expect
>> that I will need to go poke into this for the follow-on "automatic reuse
>> of pinned maps" series anyway. But sure, I can do a bit of cleanup in a
>> standalone patch first :)
>>
>> >> map->fd = new_fd;
>> >> map->name = new_name;
>> >> @@ -4022,6 +4024,7 @@ int bpf_map__pin(struct bpf_map *map, const char *path)
>> >> return -errno;
>> >> }
>> >>
>> >> + map->pin_path = strdup(path);
>> >
>> > if (!map->pin_path) {
>> > err = -errno;
>> > goto err_close_new_fd;
>> > }
>>
>> Right.
>>
>> >> pr_debug("pinned map '%s'\n", path);
>> >>
>> >> return 0;
>> >> @@ -4031,6 +4034,9 @@ int bpf_map__unpin(struct bpf_map *map, const char *path)
>> >> {
>> >> int err;
>> >>
>> >> + if (!path)
>> >> + path = map->pin_path;
>> >
>> > This semantics is kind of weird. Given we now remember pin_path,
>> > should we instead check that user-provided path is actually correct
>> > and matches what we stored? Alternatively, bpf_map__unpin() w/o path
>> > argument looks like a cleaner API.
>>
>> Yeah, I guess the function without a path argument would make the most
>> sense. However, we can't really change the API of bpf_map__unpin()
>> (unless you're proposing a symbol-versioned new version?). Dunno if it's
>> worth it to include a new, somewhat oddly-named, function to achieve
>> this? For the internal libbpf uses at least it's easy enough for the
>> caller to just go bpf_map__unpin(map, map->pin_path), so I could also
>> just drop this change? WDYT?
>
> I'd probably do strcmp(map->pin_path, path), if path is specified.
> This will support existing use cases, will allow NULL if we don't want
> to bother remembering pin_path, will prevent weird use case of pinning
> to one path, but unpinning another one.
So something like
if (path && map->pin_path && strcmp(path, map->pin_path))
return -EINVAL
else if (!path)
path = map->pin_path;
?
> Ideally, all this pinning will just be done declaratively and will
> happen automatically, so users won't even have to know about this API
> :)
Yeah, that's where I'm hoping to get to. But, well, the pin/unpin
functions already exist so we do need to keep them working...
-Toke
