On Tue, 2024-03-05 at 12:03 -0800, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
[...]
> > @@ -2922,6 +2929,8 @@ static int bpf_object__sanitize_btf(struct bpf_object *obj, struct btf *btf)
> > char *name;
> >
> > name = (char *)btf__name_by_offset(btf, t->name_off);
> > + if (*name == '?')
> > + *name++ = '_';
> > while (*name) {
> > if (*name == '.')
>
> let's just extend this to `if (*name == '.' || *name == '?')` ?
Ok.
> > @@ -2938,6 +2947,25 @@ static int bpf_object__sanitize_btf(struct bpf_object *obj, struct btf *btf)
> > vt = (void *)btf__type_by_id(btf, v->type);
> > m->name_off = vt->name_off;
> > }
> > + } else if (!has_qmark_datasec && btf_is_datasec(t) &&
> > + starts_with_qmark(btf__name_by_offset(btf, t->name_off))) {
> > + /* remove '?' prefix and add '.optional' suffix for
> > + * DATASEC names staring from '?':
> > + *
> > + * DATASEC ?.foo -> DATASEC .foo.optional
> > + */
> > + const char *name;
> > + char buf[256];
> > + int str;
> > +
> > + name = btf__name_by_offset(btf, t->name_off);
> > + snprintf(buf, sizeof(buf), "%s.optional", &name[1] /* skip '?' */);
> > + str = btf__add_str(btf, buf);
> > + if (str < 0)
> > + return str;
> > +
> > + t = (struct btf_type *)btf__type_by_id(btf, i);
> > + t->name_off = str;
>
> let's keep it simpler, just do in-place name sanitization like we did
> for !has_datasec case? It's fine if "?.struct_ops" becomes
> "_.struct_ops", kernel doesn't care and doesn't assign any special
> meaning to DATASEC names
Well, in theory this string is shared between several locations,
though this is probably highly unlikely.
Anyways, I made requested change.
[...]
