On Mon, Oct 25, 2021 at 8:59 AM Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 22, 2021 at 10:05 AM John Fastabend
> <john.fastabend@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
> > > Otherwise, attaching with bpftool doesn't work with strict section names.
> > >
> > > Also, switch to libbpf strict mode to use the latest conventions
> > > (note, I don't think we have any cli api guarantees?).
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > tools/bpf/bpftool/main.c | 4 ++++
> > > tools/bpf/bpftool/prog.c | 15 +--------------
> > > 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/tools/bpf/bpftool/main.c b/tools/bpf/bpftool/main.c
> > > index 02eaaf065f65..8223bac1e401 100644
> > > --- a/tools/bpf/bpftool/main.c
> > > +++ b/tools/bpf/bpftool/main.c
> > > @@ -409,6 +409,10 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv)
> > > block_mount = false;
> > > bin_name = argv[0];
> > >
> > > + ret = libbpf_set_strict_mode(LIBBPF_STRICT_ALL);
> > > + if (ret)
> > > + p_err("failed to enable libbpf strict mode: %d", ret);
> > > +
> >
> > Would it better to just warn? Seems like this shouldn't be fatal from
> > bpftool side?
> >
> > Also this is a potentially breaking change correct? Programs that _did_
> > work in the unstrict might suddently fail in the strict mode? If this
> > is the case whats the versioning plan? We don't want to leak these
> > type of changes across multiple versions, idealy we have a hard
> > break and bump the version.
> >
> > I didn't catch a cover letter on the series. A small
> > note about versioning and upgrading bpftool would be helpful.
>
> Yeah, it is a breaking change, every program that has non-strict
> section names will be rejected.
>
> I mentioned that in the bpftool's commit description:
> Also, switch to libbpf strict mode to use the latest conventions
> (note, I don't think we have any cli api guarantees?).
>
> So I'm actually not sure what's the best way to handle this migration
> and whether we really provide any cli guarantees to the users. I was
> always assuming that bpftool is mostly for debugging/introspection,
> but not sure.
>
> As Andrii suggested in another email, I can add a flag to disable this
> strict mode. Any better ideas?
Maybe the other way around for the transition period. Add a --strict
flag to turn on libbpf strict mode? This follows libbpf's opt-in
approach to breaking change. We can also emit warnings when people are
trying to pin programs and mention that they should switch to --strict
as in some future version this will be the default. Would that be
better for users?
>
>
>
>
> > > hash_init(prog_table.table);
> > > hash_init(map_table.table);
> > > hash_init(link_table.table);
> > > diff --git a/tools/bpf/bpftool/prog.c b/tools/bpf/bpftool/prog.c
> > > index 277d51c4c5d9..17505dc1243e 100644
> > > --- a/tools/bpf/bpftool/prog.c
> > > +++ b/tools/bpf/bpftool/prog.c
> > > @@ -1396,8 +1396,6 @@ static int load_with_options(int argc, char **argv, bool first_prog_only)
> > >
> > > while (argc) {
> > > if (is_prefix(*argv, "type")) {
> > > - char *type;
> > > -
> > > NEXT_ARG();
> > >
> > > if (common_prog_type != BPF_PROG_TYPE_UNSPEC) {
> > > @@ -1407,19 +1405,8 @@ static int load_with_options(int argc, char **argv, bool first_prog_only)
> > > if (!REQ_ARGS(1))
> > > goto err_free_reuse_maps;
> > >
> > > - /* Put a '/' at the end of type to appease libbpf */
> > > - type = malloc(strlen(*argv) + 2);
> > > - if (!type) {
> > > - p_err("mem alloc failed");
> > > - goto err_free_reuse_maps;
> > > - }
> > > - *type = 0;
> > > - strcat(type, *argv);
> > > - strcat(type, "/");
> > > -
> > > - err = get_prog_type_by_name(type, &common_prog_type,
> > > + err = get_prog_type_by_name(*argv, &common_prog_type,
> > > &expected_attach_type);
> > > - free(type);
> > > if (err < 0)
> > > goto err_free_reuse_maps;
> >
> > This wont potentially break existing programs correct? It looks like
> > just adding a '/' should be fine.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > John
