Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 11:45 AM Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> 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))
>
> can we unpin not pinned map? sounds like an error condition?
See my other comment about programs exiting. For an example, see the XDP
tutorial (just pretend for a moment that that TODO comment was actually
there :)):
https://github.com/xdp-project/xdp-tutorial/blob/master/basic04-pinning-maps/xdp_loader.c#L135
-Toke
