On Wed, Sep 01, 2021 at 06:25:14AM IST, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 10:34 AM Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
> <memxor@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
>
> -ENOCOMMITMESSAGE?
>
> > Signed-off-by: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@xxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > tools/lib/bpf/bpf.c | 3 ++
> > tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c | 71 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> > tools/lib/bpf/libbpf_internal.h | 2 +
> > 3 files changed, 73 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >
>
> [...]
>
> > @@ -515,6 +521,13 @@ struct bpf_object {
> > void *priv;
> > bpf_object_clear_priv_t clear_priv;
> >
> > + struct {
> > + struct hashmap *map;
> > + int *fds;
> > + size_t cap_cnt;
> > + __u32 n_fds;
> > + } kfunc_btf_fds;
> > +
> > char path[];
> > };
> > #define obj_elf_valid(o) ((o)->efile.elf)
> > @@ -5327,6 +5340,7 @@ bpf_object__relocate_data(struct bpf_object *obj, struct bpf_program *prog)
> > ext = &obj->externs[relo->sym_off];
> > insn[0].src_reg = BPF_PSEUDO_KFUNC_CALL;
> > insn[0].imm = ext->ksym.kernel_btf_id;
> > + insn[0].off = ext->ksym.offset;
>
> Just a few lines above we use insn[1].imm =
> ext->ksym.kernel_btf_obj_fd; for EXT_KSYM (for variables). Why are you
> inventing a new form if we already have a pretty consistent pattern?
>
That makes sense. This is all new to me, so I went with what was described in
e6ac2450d6de (bpf: Support bpf program calling kernel function), but I'll rework
it to encode the btf fd like that in the next spin. It also makes the everything
far simpler.
> > break;
> > case RELO_SUBPROG_ADDR:
> > if (insn[0].src_reg != BPF_PSEUDO_FUNC) {
>
> [...]
--
Kartikeya
