Re: [PATCH 09/11] bpf: Add d_path helper

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 1:14 PM Jiri Olsa <jolsa@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 11:58:33AM -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 3:02 AM Jiri Olsa <jolsa@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 12:18:19PM -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 2:02 AM Jiri Olsa <jolsa@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 11:25:27AM -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > SNIP
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >  /* integer value in 'imm' field of BPF_CALL instruction selects which helper
> > > > > > > > >   * function eBPF program intends to call
> > > > > > > > > diff --git a/kernel/bpf/btf_ids.c b/kernel/bpf/btf_ids.c
> > > > > > > > > index d8d0df162f04..853c8fd59b06 100644
> > > > > > > > > --- a/kernel/bpf/btf_ids.c
> > > > > > > > > +++ b/kernel/bpf/btf_ids.c
> > > > > > > > > @@ -13,3 +13,14 @@ BTF_ID(struct, seq_file)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >  BTF_ID_LIST(bpf_xdp_output_btf_ids)
> > > > > > > > >  BTF_ID(struct, xdp_buff)
> > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > +BTF_ID_LIST(bpf_d_path_btf_ids)
> > > > > > > > > +BTF_ID(struct, path)
> > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > +BTF_WHITELIST_ENTRY(btf_whitelist_d_path)
> > > > > > > > > +BTF_ID(func, vfs_truncate)
> > > > > > > > > +BTF_ID(func, vfs_fallocate)
> > > > > > > > > +BTF_ID(func, dentry_open)
> > > > > > > > > +BTF_ID(func, vfs_getattr)
> > > > > > > > > +BTF_ID(func, filp_close)
> > > > > > > > > +BTF_WHITELIST_END(btf_whitelist_d_path)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Oh, so that's why you added btf_ids.c. Do you think centralizing all
> > > > > > > > those BTF ID lists in one file is going to be more convenient? I lean
> > > > > > > > towards keeping them closer to where they are used, as it was with all
> > > > > > > > those helper BTF IDS. But I wonder what others think...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > either way works for me, but then BTF_ID_* macros needs to go
> > > > > > > to include/linux/btf_ids.h header right?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > given it's internal API, I'd probably just put it in
> > > > > > include/linux/btf.h or include/linux/bpf.h, don't think we need extra
> > > > > > header just for these
> > > > >
> > > > > actually, I might end up with extra header, so it's possible
> > > > > to add selftest for this
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > How does extra header help with selftest?
> > >
> > > to create binary with various lists defined like we do in kernel
> > > using the same macros..  and check they are properly made/sorted
> > >
> >
> > So the problem here is that selftests don't have access to internal
> > (non-UAPI) linux/bpf.h header, right? Ok, that's a fair point.
>
> hm, how about we keep tools/include/linux/btf_ids.h copy
> like we do for other kernel headers

yes, I assumed you are going to do that

>
> jirka
>



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Samsung SoC]     [Linux Rockchip SoC]     [Linux Actions SoC]     [Linux for Synopsys ARC Processors]     [Linux NFS]     [Linux NILFS]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]


  Powered by Linux