On Thu, Feb 4, 2021 at 5:53 PM Yonghong Song <yhs@xxxxxx> wrote: > > With later hashmap example, using bpftool xlated output may > look like: > int dump_task(struct bpf_iter__task * ctx): > ; struct task_struct *task = ctx->task; > 0: (79) r2 = *(u64 *)(r1 +8) > ; if (task == (void *)0 || called > 0) > ... > 19: (18) r2 = subprog[+18] > 30: (18) r2 = subprog[+26] > ... > 36: (95) exit > __u64 check_hash_elem(struct bpf_map * map, __u32 * key, __u64 * val, > struct callback_ctx * data): > ; struct bpf_iter__task *ctx = data->ctx; > 37: (79) r5 = *(u64 *)(r4 +0) > ... > 55: (95) exit > __u64 check_percpu_elem(struct bpf_map * map, __u32 * key, > __u64 * val, void * unused): > ; check_percpu_elem(struct bpf_map *map, __u32 *key, __u64 *val, void *unused) > 56: (bf) r6 = r3 > ... > 83: (18) r2 = subprog[+-46] this +-46 looks very confusing... > > Signed-off-by: Yonghong Song <yhs@xxxxxx> > --- > tools/bpf/bpftool/xlated_dumper.c | 3 +++ > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/tools/bpf/bpftool/xlated_dumper.c b/tools/bpf/bpftool/xlated_dumper.c > index 8608cd68cdd0..7bdd90503727 100644 > --- a/tools/bpf/bpftool/xlated_dumper.c > +++ b/tools/bpf/bpftool/xlated_dumper.c > @@ -196,6 +196,9 @@ static const char *print_imm(void *private_data, > else if (insn->src_reg == BPF_PSEUDO_MAP_VALUE) > snprintf(dd->scratch_buff, sizeof(dd->scratch_buff), > "map[id:%u][0]+%u", insn->imm, (insn + 1)->imm); > + else if (insn->src_reg == BPF_PSEUDO_FUNC) > + snprintf(dd->scratch_buff, sizeof(dd->scratch_buff), > + "subprog[+%d]", insn->imm + 1); why not `subprog[%+d]` instead (see above about confusing output) > else > snprintf(dd->scratch_buff, sizeof(dd->scratch_buff), > "0x%llx", (unsigned long long)full_imm); > -- > 2.24.1 >
